Monitoring the WSIS targets

© 2010 ITUInternational Telecommunication UnionPlace des NationsCH-1211 Geneva SwitzerlandOriginal language of publication: English.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmittedin any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the priorpermission of the International Telecommunication Union.ii

ForewordThe ninth edition of the World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report is being published at the half-way pointbetween the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2005 and the target date for the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) in 2015. This gives us a unique opportunity for a mid-term review — so this report focuseson the WSIS targets, and shows us that while we have achieved much in some areas we still have far to go in others.This is of critical importance in an era where Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) underpin almostevery single activity undertaken in the modern world, and affect everyone on the planet — even those who do notthemselves have first-hand access to ICTs. Good examples include food distribution, power networks, water suppliesor mass transportation, all of which are controlled and managed today by ICT networks and applications.As this report shows, tremendous progress has been made over the past decade, with close to five billion mobilecellular subscriptions worldwide at the end of 2010, and almost two billion people throughout the world now havingaccess to the Internet.But there is still a vast amount of work to be done. In particular, we need to bring affordable fast broadband accesswithin reach of the great majority of the world’s people — noting today that three quarters of the world’s inhabitantsstill have no access to the Internet at all. So what we need is to see a rapid and equitable spread of broadbandnetworks matching the extraordinary growth of mobile cellular networks over the past decade.The key — as this report acknowledges — will be in recognizing that broadband networks deliver benefits right acrosssociety, and can quickly pay for themselves in terms of the savings gained through the more efficient provision of essentialservices such as healthcare, education, power, water, transportation and e-government.Personally I have tremendous faith that the public and private sectors will work together — as they did in the creationof mobile cellular networks — to roll out the necessary infrastructure and create the necessary services to bringbroadband to all the world’s people. For this to happen, we also need to recognize, as this report explains, the vitalimportance of making sure that people are well-equipped to take advantage of all this new technology (through humancapacity building) and that enough attention is paid to the need to create and share far more local-languagecontent across the Internet. And we need to continue to monitor and attain the WSIS targets by 2015, in line withthe MDGs.I am absolutely certain that the next decade will be the decade of broadband. This is why ITU is working with UNESCOin establishing the Broadband Commission for Digital Development. The commission will be chaired by President PaulKagame of Rwanda and Carlos Slim Helú, Honorary Lifetime Chairman of Grupo Carso, with Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO, and myself, as vice-chairs. The Broadband Commission has the full support of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and will report to the 2010 MDG Summit in September.The commission complements ITU’s own “Build on Broadband” campaign, which is designed to increase awarenessof the vital role broadband will play in the 21st century in every country in the world. I therefore expect broadbandto be high on the agenda at the World Telecommunication Development Conference 2010, which is taking place inHyderabad, India, from 24 May to 4 June, and I look forward to seeing you there and to sharing in the debates whichwill shape global ICT development over the next four years – and beyond.Dr Hamadoun I. TouréSecretary-GeneralInternational Telecommunication Unioniii

PrefaceI am pleased to present the World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report (WTDR) 2010, which focuses onMonitoring the WSIS targets. This ninth edition of the WTDR, which contains a mid-term review of the achievementsof the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), is a contribution to the World Telecommunication DevelopmentConference (WTDC) to take place in Hyderabad, India, from 24 May to 4 June, 2010.ITU has a long history of measuring developments in the area of telecommunications and ICTs, both in terms ofinfrastructure and — more recently — in terms of use. At the international level, the Union has taken on a lead rolenot only in measuring and analysing ICT trends, but also in identifying indicators and definitions. Together with otherinternational and regional organizations, and within the framework of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development,we have also been working towards a set of internationally comparable and harmonized data. Through thisreport, ITU is reaffirming its leading role in measuring the information society.The year 2010 marks the midpoint between the Tunis phase of WSIS (2005) and the deadline for achieving the tentargets that governments agreed upon at the Summit (2015). These targets range from connecting villages, schools,health centres, libraries and government agencies, to developing content, and providing ICT services to people. Themain objective of the report is to provide policy-makers with a comprehensive assessment of what has been achievedso far, and what remains to be done. Besides highlighting actual progress and trends since WSIS, the report alsoproposes quantitative indicators to measure the ten WSIS targets. This is the first time a full-scale global monitoringprocess and assessment of the targets is being put in place.The report highlights the major achievements that have been accomplished in connecting people via mobile technologies.Today, mobile cellular networks already cover close to 90 per cent of the world population, and we expectcoverage to reach 100 per cent by 2015. We are also confident that by 2015 more than half of the world populationwill be using a mobile telephone. At the same time, the report shows that, in a number of areas, substantial effortsneed to be made to achieve the targets. Too many schools in developing countries continue to be deprived of accessto the Internet, and three-quarters of people in the world are not yet online. Only a very small proportion of the informationhosted by libraries and archives has been digitized, and even less is available online. The report also pointsto the persistent broadband divide, which policy-makers need to tackle urgently. Whereas, by the end of 2009, mostpeople in the developed countries enjoyed Internet access with a high-speed connection, broadband penetrationrates in the developing world stood at a meagre 3.5 per cent.The WTDR is the fruit of a joint effort by several international organizations, led by ITU, and includes contributionsfrom UNESCO, WHO and UNDESA, as well as from representatives of civil society. This collaborative effort not onlyreflects the broad range of subjects covered by WSIS, but also underlines the cross-cutting nature of the informationsociety, and the recognition that ICTs are truly a development enabler and hence of tremendous importance for anydevelopment debate.I am convinced that this report will prove useful in evaluating progress on the WSIS outcomes and the developmentof the global information society. Its findings and recommendations will provide a valuable input to the debate atWTDC.Sami Al Basheer Al MorshidDirectorTelecommunication Development Bureau (BDT)International Telecommunication Unionv

AcknowledgementsThe World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report (WTDR) 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets was prepared by the MarketInformation and Statistics Division within the Telecommunication Development Bureau of ITU. The core team includedSusan Teltscher (Head of Division), Vanessa Gray (chapters on Targets 1, 2, 7, 8 and 10) and Desirée van Welsum (chapterson Targets 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9). Philippa Biggs of the ITU General Secretariat co-authored the chapter on Target 3. EsperanzaMagpantay, Doris Olaya and Andreea Todoran (during her internship at ITU) provided substantive comments and inputs, aswell as statistical tables, on various chapters of the report. Olivier Poupaert contributed to the data collection and analysis.Susan Schorr, Head, a.i., Special Initiatives Division, made helpful suggestions on the chapter on Target 10. The work wascarried out under the overall direction of Mario Maniewicz, Chief, Policies and Strategies Department, TelecommunicationDevelopment Bureau.ITU is grateful to a large number of outside contributors who have collaborated in the drafting of this report. These includethe following:The chapters on Targets 2 and 7 were contributed by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), in particular Patrick Lucas,Claude Akpabie and Beatriz Valdez-Melgar. Katsiaryna Miniukovich (Ministry of Education of Belarus) provided useful inputsto the chapter on Target 2 and Joel Peetersoo (Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia) to the chapter on Target 7.The chapter on Target 5 was contributed by the World Health Organization (WHO), in particular Misha Kay, with Najeeb AlShorbaji, Joan Dzenowagis, Marina Takane, Jonathan Santos and Diana Zandi.The chapter on Target 6 was contributed by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), in particularSeema Hafeez.The chapter on Target 9 was contributed by Daniel Pimienta from the Networks and Development Foundation (FUNRE-DES), with inputs from Daniel Prado (Union Latine), Jean-François C. Morfin (Intlnet), Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers) and DeirdreWilliams (St Lucia). Matthew Zook from ZookNIC provided data on ccTDLs.Michael Minges provided substantive inputs to the chapters on Targets 1, 2, 4, 8 and 10. Guido Koller and Manuela Höflerof the Schweizerisches Bundesarchiv, and Annick Carteret of the International Council on Archives, provided inputs to thechapter on Target 4. The chapter also includes data from the Universal Postal Union (UPU), which is gratefully acknowledged.ITU also appreciates the cooperation of countries that responded to the 2009 ITU Questionnaire on the WSIS Targets.The report was edited by the ITU English Translation Section, led by Anthony Pitt. The desktop publishing was carried outby Nathalie Rollet, and the cover was designed by Stephane Rollet. Administrative support was provided by HerawasihYasandikusuma.vi

ContentsForeword................................................................................................................................ iiiPreface.................................................................................................................................... vAcknowledgements................................................................................................................. viList of abbreviations................................................................................................................xvExecutive summary................................................................................................................xxiIntroduction............................................................................................................................. 1WSIS follow-up and implementation.......................................................................................................................2WSIS monitoring and evaluation..............................................................................................................................3Methodology for preparing the report....................................................................................................................5Ten targets, ten chapters.........................................................................................................................................5References............................................................................................................................................................... 8Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access points....................... 9Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................9Measuring Target 1 — Proposed indicators...........................................................................................................10Status of Target 1...................................................................................................................................................13Conclusions and recommendations.......................................................................................................................23References.............................................................................................................................................................28Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs...29Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................29Measuring Target 2 — Proposed indicators...........................................................................................................31Status of Target 2...................................................................................................................................................33Conclusions and recommendations.......................................................................................................................40References.............................................................................................................................................................44Annex 2.1: ICTs in schools (ISCED levels 1-3), 2009...............................................................................................45Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTs......................................... 47Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................47Measuring Target 3 — Proposed indicators...........................................................................................................50Status of the target................................................................................................................................................51Conclusions and recommendations.......................................................................................................................60References.............................................................................................................................................................63vii

Annex 3.1: List of national research and education networks (NRENs).................................................................64Annex 3.2: Extract from the TERENA Compendium 2009 questionnaire...............................................................67Annex 3.3: Status of NRENs in Latin America, 2007...............................................................................................68Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and .archives with ICTs....................................................................................................... 69Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................69Public libraries........................................................................................................................................................70Cultural centres......................................................................................................................................................76Museums................................................................................................................................................................79Post offices.............................................................................................................................................................86Archives..................................................................................................................................................................89Conclusions and recommendations.......................................................................................................................92References.............................................................................................................................................................98Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs............................................ 99Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................99Measuring Target 5 — Proposed indicators.........................................................................................................101Status of Target 5.................................................................................................................................................104Conclusions and recommendations.....................................................................................................................113References...........................................................................................................................................................116Annex 5.1: Breakdown of responding countries in the 2009 GOe global survey on e-health,by World Bank income group 1-4.........................................................................................................................117Target 6: Connect all local and central government departments and establish .websites and e-mail addresses............................................................................................. 119Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................119Measuring Target 6 — Proposed indicators.........................................................................................................121Status of Target 6.................................................................................................................................................122Conclusions and recommendations.....................................................................................................................132References...........................................................................................................................................................135Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges ofthe information society, taking into account national circumstances........................ 137Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................137Measuring Target 7 — Proposed indicators.........................................................................................................139Status of Target 7.................................................................................................................................................142Conclusions and recommendations.....................................................................................................................147References...........................................................................................................................................................150Annex 7.1: ICTs in education (ISCED levels 1-3)...................................................................................................151

8.6 Proportion of LDC households with electricity, compared to households with a TV, 2008 (or latest available year)..1618.7 Gap between LDC households with electricity and households with television, %, latest available year.......1628.8 Households with cable TV, satellite TV, and IPTV, millions, world..................................................................1639.1 Regional distribution of languages, 2009........................................................................................................1809.2 Top ten languages on the Internet, 2009........................................................................................................1829.3 Internet users and ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants, 2009*................................................................18610.1 Global ICT development, 1998-2009...............................................................................................................19510.2 Global mobile cellular subscriptions, 2000-2009.............................................................................................19810.3 Global mobile cellular penetration, by region, 2009.......................................................................................19810.4 Mobile cellular users versus mobile cellular subscriptions in Europe and countries where data are available, 2008.......20010.5 Global number of Internet users, 2000-2009..................................................................................................20110.6 Internet user penetration by region, 2009......................................................................................................20210.7 Internet users by gender.................................................................................................................................20210.8 Proportion of households with Internet access, by region, 2008....................................................................20410.9 Proportion of households with Internet access by level of development, 2008.............................................20410.10 Proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access, 2008..............................................205Figures2.1 Information needs at different levels of ICT penetration in educational systems.............................................325.6 Barriers to implementing telemedicine solutions, by World Bank income group...........................................1128.1 Television coverage and percentage of households with electricity and television, South Africa, 2007........1549.1 Key figures for languages on the Internet, 2010.............................................................................................181Boxes1 What are the WSIS targets?.................................................................................................................................22 The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development and WSIS ..........................................................................43 ITU Survey on the WSIS targets...........................................................................................................................51.1 The spread of mobile telephony in rural areas: an example from Paraguay and Jordan..................................161.2 More broadband, please: Malaysia adapts universal service regulation..........................................................181.3 Connect and inform every Colombian...............................................................................................................211.4 Public Internet access in Peru............................................................................................................................221.5 More bandwidth for rural areas in East Africa..................................................................................................231.6 Grameenphone in Bangladesh: From (just) mobile to mobile broadband........................................................232.1 The benefits of connecting educational institutions for learners and teachers................................................302.2 Setting targets: Examples from the Americas, Africa and Australia..................................................................32xi

2.3 Measuring progress — Case of Belarus.............................................................................................................372.4 Electricity before broadband?...........................................................................................................................402.5 The Chilean model — Partnering to connect schools........................................................................................412.6 Uruguay closes the digital gap...........................................................................................................................413.1 What is a national research and education network (NREN)?..........................................................................493.2 Data collected by the Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association (TERENA)................513.3 GÉANT 2.............................................................................................................................................................593.4 A look to the future: the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) at CERN.....................................................604.1 Digital libraries...................................................................................................................................................714.2 Examples of initiatives to connect libraries.......................................................................................................764.3 Examples of initiatives to connect cultural centres...........................................................................................794.4 Virtual museum visits........................................................................................................................................854.5 Examples of initiatives to connect post offices..................................................................................................884.6 The importance of digital archives....................................................................................................................915.1 M-health..........................................................................................................................................................1015.2 HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) — When content drives connectivity ...............1025.3 The Global Observatory for eHealth................................................................................................................1055.4 Belize — an example of a model national e-health programme in a developing country setting...................1096.1 The benefits of e-government.........................................................................................................................1206.2 The level of e-government services in the EU.................................................................................................1296.3 Use of e-government services by citizens and businesses..............................................................................1307.1 The six Education for All (EFA) goals................................................................................................................1387.2 Estonia’s tiger leap from prerequisites to action.............................................................................................1397.3 The use of ICT in curricula — A review of selected comparative assessments...............................................1407.4 How is ICT-assisted instruction defined?.........................................................................................................1417.5 Integrating ICTs in the curricula — A priority in Jordan...................................................................................1438.1 Broadcasting and the Internet.........................................................................................................................1558.2 Community radio.............................................................................................................................................1588.3 TV in .tv (Tuvalu)..............................................................................................................................................1608.4 More multichannel, more content, more demand: examples from South Asia..............................................1648.5 Pan-regional direct-to-home (DTH) systems targeted at developing regions.................................................1669.1 Understanding digital concepts.......................................................................................................................1779.2 Requirements for the presence of languages on the Internet........................................................................1789.3 Measuring the number of webpages by language..........................................................................................1799.4 Active policies to boost content creation: The case of Catalan.......................................................................18610.1 Examples of non-voice mobile phone applications for development in Africa...............................................19610.2 Mobile success factors.....................................................................................................................................19910.3 Government support crucial for Internet uptake: examples from Morocco and Viet Nam............................203xii

Tables1.1 Indicators for measuring Target 1.....................................................................................................................101.2 Rural population covered by a mobile cellular signal, 2008..............................................................................141.3 Population covered by a mobile signal in 2008 across the United Kingdom and nations.................................153.1 Public scientific and research centres with access to the Internet, 2009..........................................................523.2 NRENs, 2009......................................................................................................................................................533.3 Types of institutions for which connection to the NREN is allowed (%), selected countries, 2008...................553.4 Bandwidth of NRENs, Mbit/s, 2001-2008, and expected change for 2010.......................................................574.1 Public libraries with access to the Internet, by type of access, and with a website, by country, 2009.............744.2 Percentage of public libraries offering Internet access, by region, 2007..........................................................754.3 Percentage of public libraries with Internet access for users, and websites, 2006 or latest, Latin Americaand the Caribbean.............................................................................................................................................754.4 Cultural centres with Internet access, by country, by type of access, 2009......................................................784.5 Museums with access to the Internet by type of connection, and with a website, selected countries, 2009......814.6 Museums with a website, European countries, latest year available...............................................................824.7 Selected museums with a website, Africa, 2007...............................................................................................834.8 Museums in selected countries in the Americas...............................................................................................834.9 Websites of some of the world’s major museums............................................................................................844.10 Digitization of archived information, 2009........................................................................................................905.1 Proposed indicators for monitoring Target 5..................................................................................................1035.2 Prime sources of health and ICT-related data.................................................................................................1045.3 Percentage of health institutions with access to the Internet, 2009...............................................................1065.4 Foundation actions..........................................................................................................................................1085.5 Enabling actions for ICT for health...................................................................................................................1105.6 Preliminary WHO GOe survey results 2009.....................................................................................................1106.1 Percentage of government entities with Internet access, 2009......................................................................1236.2 The use of ICT in government, New Zealand, 2008.........................................................................................1246.3 Countries with government websites, 2003 and 2009....................................................................................1256.4 Government ministries connected to the national homepage, 2009.............................................................1266.5 Online services related to citizen participation, 2009.....................................................................................1288.1 Indicators (and definitions) to monitor access to TV and radio services.........................................................1568.2 Mobile TV deployments, selected developing countries, status as of 2009....................................................1689.1 Distribution of languages by number of first-language speakers, 2009..........................................................1809.2 Growth of social networking sites, by region, June 2007-June 2008..............................................................1829.3 Production of webpages in French, by region and by country, 2007 (percentage of pages — productivity)......... 1839.4 Production of webpages in other languages, by country, 2007 (percentage of pages — productivity).........1839.5 Twenty ccTLDs with the strongest average annual growth of registrations, 2005-2009................................1849.6 The twenty countries with the largest increase in ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants, 2005-2009........185xiii

List of abbreviations3GThird-generation (mobile technology)4GFourth-generation (mobile technology)ADSL Asymmetric digital subscriber lineALICE America Latina Interconectada Con EuropaAMAmplitude modulationAPAN Asia-Pacific Advanced NetworkARCEP Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postesARNES Academic and Research Network of SloveniaATM Automated teller machineBDTBangladesh Taka (currency)kLBHIS Belize Health Information SystemBioGRID Biological General Repository for Interaction DatasetsBLSS Bhutan Living Standard SurveyCAGR Compound annual growth rateCAIComputer-assisted instructionCAREN Central Asian Research and Education NetworkCASBAA Cable & Satellite Broadcasting Association of AsiaCATV Cable televisionccTLDs Country code top-level domainsCD/DVD Compact disc/Digital versatile (or video) discCDMA Code Division Multiple AccesscdmaOne Code Division Multiple Access OneCDMA2000 1X Code Division Multiple Access 1 times Radio Transmission TechnologyCDMA2000 1xEV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) Code Division Multiple Access 1x Evolution-Data OptimizedCERN European Organization for Nuclear ResearchCERNET China Education and Research NetworkCICCommunity information centreCISCommonwealth of Independent StatesCLARA Cooperación Latino Americana de Redes AvanzadasCOSINE Co-operation for Open Systems Interconnection in EuropeCSTNET China Science and Technology NetworkCyNet Cyprus' National Research and Education NetworkDANTE Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to EuropeDBCDE Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia)DHSDemographic and Health Surveyxv

DICEDTHDTTDVB-HDVDDVG-HECAECLACECOSOCEFAEFTAEGMUSEHR/EMReLACERNETESCAPESCWAESnetEUFAIFEFCCFMFTTHFUNREDESGbit/sGDPGOeGPRSGPSGSMgTLDHIMSSHINARIHIV/AIDSHSPAIAIICAICANNICCDANTE-Internet2-CANARIE-EsnetDirect-to-homeDigital terrestrial televisionDigital video broadcasting — HandheldDigital versatile (or video) discDigital video broadcast — HandheldSee UNECASee UNECLACUnited Nations Economic and Social CouncilEducation for AllEuropean Free Trade AssociationEuropean Group on Museum StatisticsElectronic health records/Electronic medical recordsStrategy for the Information Society in Latin America and the CaribbeanEducation and Research NetworkSee UNESCAPSee UNESCWAEnergy Sciences NetworkEuropean UnionFree Access to Information and Freedom of ExpressionFederal Communications CommissionFrequency modulationFibre-to-the-homeFundación Redes y DesarrolloGigabits per secondGross domestic productGlobal Observatory for eHealthGeneral Packet Radio ServiceGlobal Positioning SystemGlobal System for Mobile CommunicationsGeneric top-level domainsHealthcare Information and Management Systems SocietyHealth InterNetwork Access to Research InitiativeHuman immunodeficiency virus/Acquired immune deficiency syndromeHigh Speed Packet AccessInternet-assisted instructionInternational Council on ArchivesInternet Corporation for Assigned Names and NumbersIsraeli Cultural Centrexvi

ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural PropertyICOM International Council of MuseumsICTInformation and communication technologyICTsInformation and communication technologiesICT4D ICT for developmentICT4E ICT for educationiDEN Integrated Digital Enhanced NetworkIDNInternationalized domain namesIDRC International Development Research CentreIFLAInternational Federation of Library AssociationsIGFInternet Governance ForumIMFInternational Monetary FundINEIInstituto Nacional de Estadística e InformáticaINRIndian Rupee (currency)IPInternet ProtocolIPTV Internet Protocol televisionIPv6 Internet Protocol version 6IQDIraqi dinar (currency)ISCED UNESCO’s International Standard Classification of EducationISDB-T Integrated services digital broadcasting — TerrestrialISPInternet service providerITInformation technologyITUInternational Telecommunication UnionJPEG Joint Photographic Experts GroupKESKenya shilling (currency)LANLocal area networkLHCLarge Hadron ColliderLDCLeast developed countryLKRSri Lanka rupee (currency)LOPLanguage Observatory ProjectLWLongwaveMAAYA World Network for Linguistic DiversityMAN Metropolitan access networkMbit/s Megabits per secondMCIT Ministry of Communication and Information Technology in EgyptMCMC Malaysian Communications and Multimedia CommissionMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMMDS Multichannel multipoint distribution serviceMUR Mauritius rupee (currency)xvii

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsrable indicators, and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society provides suggestionsrelated to the “periodic evaluation” of the WSIS outcomes. In particular, it acknowledgesthe efforts of the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (hereinafter referredto as the Partnership) to develop a core list of ICT indicators and to build statistical capabilityin developing countries in order to monitor their evolution towards becominginformation societies. It also requests the United Nations General Assembly to make anoverall review of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes in 2015.Important developmentshave occurredsince WSIS, and theInternet has becomea general-purposetechnology likeelectricityAlthough some stakeholders, notably the members of the Partnership, have addressedthe important task of monitoring progress, the WSIS targets are very broad and coverareas which go beyond the Partnership’s core list and which are particularly challengingto measure and compare internationally. The report reviews these challenges andproposes quantitative indicators for monitoring the targets, along the lines of the internationallyagreed indicators used for tracking the MDGs.The report also takes into consideration important ICT developments that have occurredsince the Geneva phase of the Summit, which were not anticipated at the time of WSIS.The most striking example is the rise of mobile telephony and related applications. Onthe technology side, the launch of new standards in the mobile sector, the convergenceof technologies and the steady increase in high-speed communication infrastructurehave significantly altered the way ICTs are accessed and used. The emergence of Web2.0 and user-created content on the Internet are shaping today’s information societydevelopments.It is widely recognized that ICTs are increasingly important for economic and social development.Indeed, today the Internet is considered as a general-purpose technologyand access to broadband is regarded as a basic infrastructure, in the same way as electricityor roads. In some countries, such as Estonia, Finland and France, access to theInternet is a fundamental human right for their citizens. Such developments need to betaken into consideration when reviewing the WSIS targets and their achievement, andappropriate adjustments to the targets need to be made, especially to include broadbandInternet.WTDR 2010 is acollaborative effortamong UN agenciesIn view of the broad range of subjects covered by the WSIS outcome documents and thetargets, the report has been drafted in close collaboration with other UN agencies andstakeholders, in particular the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (Targets 2 and 7), the UNDepartment of Social and Economic Affairs (Target 6) and the World Health Organization(Target 5). Representatives from civil society provided substantive inputs to the chaptercovering Target 9.The report is based on the latest available data. While some data are collected at theinternational level, notably by ITU, UNESCO and UNDESA, overall data availability relatingto the WSIS targets is poor. To complement these data sources, a survey was carriedout by ITU among its Member States, between September and November 2009. Theinformation provided by countries is featured throughout the report.The following sections summarize the main findings and conclusions for each of the tentargets.xxii

Executive summaryTarget 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community accesspointsWith no internationally agreed definition of what constitutes a “village,” and given thelack of data on the number of villages by country, Target 1 measures ICTs in rural andremote areas. This is consistent with the fundamental intent of Target 1, which was formulatedto ensure that people living in rural areas are not excluded from the informationsociety. Rural areas stand to benefit from connectivity even more than others, onaccount of their geographical situation and because ICTs have the potential to deliverhealth, education and other services that might otherwise be less widely available. Thetarget further recognizes the need to ensure the availability of public Internet access.Mobile technology is currently the most widely diffused ICT, and available data suggestthat by the end of 2008 almost three-quarters of the world’s rural inhabitants were coveredby a mobile cellular signal, up from 40 per cent in 2003. The lowest coverage is inAfrica, where just over 50 per cent of the rural population is within reach of a mobile cellularnetwork. This still represents a significant improvement from 2003, however, whencoverage stood at only 20 per cent. Complete mobile coverage of all rural areas worldwideby 2015, or even earlier, should become a clear policy target and would appear achievablewith the right policy emphasis. Countries also need to take advantage of wireless technologiesto deliver high-speed Internet access and launch 3G networks, where they arenot yet available. To this end, policy-makers also need to monitor the percentage of thepopulation within reach of a 3G mobile cellular signal.Data on the proportion of households with a fixed and/or mobile telephone show thatrural households in developing countries rely predominantly on mobile telephony. Theproportion of rural households with a mobile telephone has reached, or now exceeds,50 per cent in many developing countries. In comparison, fixed (wired) telephone penetrationin rural households is much lower, and even non-existent in some areas.In contrast to the diffusion of mobile technologies, the report finds that many ruralhouseholds are still deprived of basic access to the Internet. A lack of electricity and thehigh price of computers and Internet are major barriers in developing countries. Unsurprisingly,broadband Internet penetration levels in rural households are even lower.Where rural household Internet access is very low, community access points are criticalfor bringing people online. Indeed, a growing number of developing countries are movingahead with the installation of public Internet access facilities in rural areas, oftenfinanced through universal access contributions or licence conditions. Existing data suggestthat, in many developing countries, people in rural areas use the Internet in publiclocations. This is especially true in Latin America, where considerable policy emphasishas been placed on setting up public Internet access centres. Nevertheless, the low proportionof Internet users in developing countries (even lower in rural areas) suggeststhat much remains to be done to bring Internet to rural communities.There are a number of strategies and policies that governments should pursue so as toincrease Internet and broadband access and usage in rural areas. These include intensifyingcompetition in all ICT markets, adapting universal access and service policies inorder to integrate the delivery of ICTs to rural areas, and fostering wireless broadbandaccess. Given the low number of Internet users in many developing countries, governmentsneed to adopt the appropriate policies and provide the necessary resourcesto encourage the establishment of sufficient public Internet access points, preferablyequipped with broadband technology, especially in rural areas. With increasing incomes— and the availability of electricity — people will opt for the convenience of using ICTsat home. Therefore, as household Internet access goes up, community access is likely togo down. Policy-makers need to keep this relationship in mind and policies to promoteSeventy-five per centof the world’s ruralpopulation is coveredby a mobile cellularsignalIn many developingcountries, more thanhalf of rural householdshave a mobiletelephone, but veryfew have InternetaccessMore public Internetaccess facilities arenecessary in order tobring more peopleonlinexxiii

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetspublic access need to move in tandem with facilitating home ICT access. As incomes rise,the emphasis should shift from public towards household access.Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools andprimary schools with ICTsToo many schools indeveloping countrieshave no InternetaccessTarget 2 recognizes the multiple benefits of providing access to ICT infrastructure withineducation systems. ICT connectivity in schools provides students with new resourcesand pedagogical tools, allows them to acquire the skills required for the information society,improves administrative processes and supports teacher training. Outside schoolhours, connected schools can provide access to ICTs for the community, including marginalizedgroups.The target must address newer and older ICTs, both of which hold effective potential fordelivering educational content. Older (broadcasting) technologies, such as radio and TV,may complement newer technologies, including the Internet and computers. For someschools, they are the only relevant alternative if newer ICTs are not available, or affordable.Since it is assumed that higher-education institutions are largely connected to basicICTs, and Internet access in universities is covered by Target 3, the report proposes thatTarget 2 focus solely on monitoring ICT connectivity in primary and secondary schools.Students in developedcountries have accessto more computersIn terms of e-education technologies, Internet access in schools is the most widelytracked indicator and often the subject of policy discussion and goals, suggesting thatpolicy-makers attach great importance to it. In the main, in 2010 schools in developedcountries are connected to the Internet, and usually through high-speed broadband networks,which offer the greatest potential for delivering innovative and useful applicationsand services. A number of developing countries have initiated projects to bringICTs to schools, have set clear targets and have achieved high levels of Internet andeven broadband penetration. Overall, though, Internet penetration levels in developingcountries are still low, and many schools remain deprived of any form of Internet access.Unless many more governments take far-reaching policy decisions soon, it is unlikelythat all schools will be connected to the Internet by 2015, let alone through high-speednetworks.Existing data on the learner-to-computer ratio show that there are important variationsacross countries, with relatively more computers for fewer students in most developedeconomies and less favourable ratios in the developing world. Many students today donot have access to a computer at all.Governments need toset clear targets andensure that in thelong term schools areonline, at high speedIn view of the very limited availability of newer ICTs in many developing countries, olderICTs represent an important alternative. The availability and use of TVs and radios foreducational purposes in schools vary between developed and developing countries, butalso within each group, suggesting that policies and objectives depend very much onnational circumstances and priorities. Whereas in some countries, especially developingcountries, all schools use radios and TVs for educational purposes, penetration levelsare very low in others. Although penetration levels for TV and radio are fairly similar,TV-assisted instruction tends to dominate in a number of countries.Data further suggest that, for a number of countries, broadcasting technologies are arelevant alternative only if newer technologies are not available or affordable. Bringingradios and TVs into schools could therefore be considered as a short- to medium-termtarget that should ultimately be complemented by Internet access.Besides identifying the most appropriate strategies to equip schools with ICTs, policymakersneed to set clear targets and implement the necessary policies to ensure that,xxiv

Executive summaryin the long term, all primary and secondary schools are online, at high speed, and thatstudents have access to computers at schools.Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsUniversities and research centres have been closely related to the Internet since its inception.In some developing countries, the major universities or the academic networkeven acted as the first Internet service provider (ISP). Today, they continue to pioneeradvances in ICTs in network infrastructure, services and applications, including the latestdevelopments in grid and cloud computing. Most research centres and universities areconnected to the Internet, often with a broadband connection.It is also important to connect scientific and research centres and universities to nationalresearch and educational networks (NRENs), defined as specialized ISPs dedicated tosupporting the needs of the research and education community. These NRENs not onlyhelp to further knowledge and facilitate scientific discoveries — they can also help buildhuman capital and promote economic development. Many universities and researchinstitutes are connected to the NREN, where one exists. By early 2010, around 62 percent of countries had an NREN, ranging from 100 and 88 per cent of countries in the CISand Europe, respectively, to 33 per cent of countries in Africa.When connected to international research networks, NRENs can also contribute to promotinginternational collaboration and enabling positive research and development spillovers. NRENs can also facilitate the expansion of Internet access to local populations, forexample by providing Internet access to students.Besides providing access to the Internet, NRENs administer and support high-speedbackbone networks employed by research projects. Data for European NRENs show significantgrowth in the bandwidth available to research networks, and between 2002 and2008 the bandwidth of NRENs in 44 countries increased from less than 20 000 to closeto 200 000 Mbit/s. Over the same period, the number of countries with NRENs withmore than 10 Gigabits of bandwidth increased from just one to 14. While an increasingnumber of NRENs are operating at Gigabit capacity, existing data suggest that the availablenetwork bandwidth varies greatly between countries, and NRENs in a number ofdeveloping countries, in particular, are still restricted to only a few Megabits of capacity.NRENs are increasingly interconnected and the number of international research networksis growing. While all regions enjoy at least some of the benefits of these advancedresearch and education networks, there is a need to interconnect regionalnetworks of NRENs still further and to establish these networks in countries wherethey do not yet exist. It is important to ensure that developing countries, includingthe least developed countries, can also benefit by participating in and contributing tothe pioneering developments in scientific and academic research that characterize theinformation society.In order to promote the expansion of the NREN, and to include as many institutions aspossible (universities and research centres, but also government departments, schools,hospitals, libraries and archives), governments must work with NRENs to ensure thatthey are fully embedded within the national innovation system and that they serve theneeds of the local research community. Governments could consider conducting consultationswith NREN stakeholders in order to review challenges and bottlenecks to boostingnetwork deployment and connectivity. National policies should focus on the roll-outand growth of NRENs in developing countries, and enhance their bandwidth capacities.Governments should also consider prioritizing the research institutes to be connected tothe NREN, based on their size and the types of research performed. In addition, NRENsMost research institutesand universitieshave access tothe Internet, oftenthrough a broadbandconnectionBy 2010, around62 per cent of countrieshad a nationalresearch and educationalnetworkToday, the bandwidthof countries’national research andeducational networksranges from just afew Megabits to over10 Gigabitsxxv

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsshould explore partnerships with other regional and global networks, and could negotiatepublic-private partnerships with existing telecommunication operators.Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums,post offices and archives with ICTsIn developed countries,most libraries,museums and archivesare connectedto the Internet, oftenat broadband speeds,but not yet in developingcountriesWhile the institutions covered by Target 4 are similar to the extent that they are allhighly knowledge- and information-intensive, they are also quite different, notably interms of the specific purpose they serve and the role they can play in providing Internetaccess or online content. Indeed, the objective of connecting these institutions can betwofold: providing public Internet access (in libraries, cultural centres and post offices),and developing local content in local languages and preserving cultural heritage (notablythrough libraries, museums and archives).Internet access in the institutions covered by this target is highest in developed countries.The potential for improvement is greatest in developing countries, where muchmore needs to be done if all institutions are to have access to the Internet by 2015,especially for those located outside urban areas. At the same time, providing publicInternet access is most relevant in developing countries, since in the developed worldmore people have access to the Internet at home, at work or at school.Libraries, post offices and — in certain cases — cultural centres are ideal locations forproviding public Internet access to the community. They already have an existing infrastructurewith a network of branches, and are open to the public, which means theymay reach a population that does not have access to the Internet at home or at work.More should be doneto encourage publicInternet accessthrough libraries andpost offices, especiallyin areas wherehousehold Internetpenetration remainslowLibraries, museums and archives share the potential to provide online content. Theyeach host treasures of local content which should be digitized and made available onlineso as to promote cultural diversity and provide wider access to the world’s cultural heritagefor researchers and the general public. In most developed countries, these institutionsare present on the Internet, although the available online information needs to beexpanded. Some of the major institutions in developing countries also have a website,although generally without as much accessible information. Therefore, one of the mainchallenges is to bring more institutions in developing countries online and to encouragethem to use the Internet to offer digitized content. Unfortunately, many developingcountries lack the resources for an information technology budget, and a broadbandInternet connection is not always available or affordable.With the right policy focus, Target 4 could be attained by 2015, even if there is still someway to go, especially in developing countries. There are many initiatives under way toconnect libraries, museums, post offices, cultural centres and archives, and the cost ofconnecting them is relatively low, especially relative to the potential benefits. Indeed,there are relatively fewer of these institutions than, for example, households or schools,thus increasing the feasibility of reaching the target. Governments could look to supplementarysources of funding, including the private sector, development agencies andphilanthropy organizations. Combining private funds with public resources could help toconnect these institutions and enable them to create websites.xxvi

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTarget 6: Connect all local and central government departmentsand establish websites and e-mail addressesToday, almost allcentral governmentshave a web presenceand provide at leastbasic information totheir citizens, includingin the developingworldThe use of ICT in government — referred to as e-government — can be key to achievingspecific social and economic development goals. Governments are increasingly recognizingthe role ICTs can play in promoting effective and speedy solutions for developmentthrough the delivery of public services. E-government can contribute effectivelyto creating an enabling environment for development, by enhancing transparency andaccountability and promoting good governance in the public sector. As such, e-governmentis a major tool for public-sector reform towards better governance, which is oneof the objectives of the United Nations Millennium Declaration.Many countries have been reforming and modernizing their public-sector systems. Thisinvolves putting in place ICT infrastructure and promoting the use of ICTs to maximizeimpact and increase public-sector efficiency. Indeed, while investment in infrastructureis necessary for the diffusion of ICTs, the impact will ultimately depend on the use thatis being made of them. Therefore, Target 6 also needs to address how governments useICTs to improve the provision of information and services to their citizens.Some progress has been made in achieving Target 6. At the end of 2009, no fewer than189 countries had a central government website and provided at least basic informationto their citizens, up from 173 in 2003. Also, in the majority of countries, governmentministries and departments had a web presence, suggesting that by 2015 this part ofthe target will be achieved.In most developingcountries, sophisticatedinteractive andtransactional onlineservices are not yetavailableMost central governmentdepartments indeveloped countriesnow have access tothe Internet, but lessis known about thesituation in developingcountries or inlocal governmentsThe government sector also plays an important role in making relevant applications andcontent available online. Some countries, especially developed countries, have startedto provide more sophisticated interactive and transactional online services. In most developingcountries, however, such services are not yet provided online. By 2009, forexample, only 21 (out of 192) countries worldwide offered tracking of (governmentprovided)permits as an online service to their citizens. Much is therefore left to be doneto achieve this aspect of the target.In developed countries, government institutions tend to have access to the Internet,often through a broadband connection. Much less is known about Internet access forgovernment institutions in developing countries and in local government entities. In developingcountries, a lack of resources — financial, human and infrastructure — is aconstraint for increasing access to the Internet.It is also important to obtain more information about the use of ICTs within governmentinstitutions, both in developed and developing countries, especially regarding the typeand quality of the connectivity, the extent of its diffusion (for example, what percentageof staff in government institutions have access to the Internet), and the actual useto which access to ICTs and the Internet is put. Indeed, little information is available onhow ICTs are used, for example, for reforming and restructuring the interdepartmentalorganization of different levels of government.In order to achieve the target on e-government by 2015, action needs to be taken at boththe national and international levels. Specific recommendations include the formulationof a framework for an integrated e-government development strategy to exploit thesynergies of new technologies in government departments and entities. Policy-makersmust ensure the deployment of infrastructure, in particular broadband, as well as the effectiveuse of ICTs in government. Governments should also develop appropriate onlineservices which will attract users to utilize the Internet. By encouraging the developmentof local content through partnerships with the private sector, development agencies,non-governmental organizations and the academic and research sector, governmentsxxviii

Executive summarycan provide even more incentives for citizens to go online to access public services.The dissemination of best practices and lessons learnt from experiences in effective e-government and e-governance worldwide can inform such policies. Further recommendationsinclude the formal adoption of ICT-for-development and e-government plans,continued follow-up on e-government development at the local level, and support fore-government capacity building at the national and local level.Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school curricula tomeet the challenges of the information society, taking into accountnational circumstancesTarget 7 recognizes the need for countries to take active steps in investing in people andtheir skills. It is the second target (besides Target 2) that focuses on schools, highlightingthe importance that education institutions have in enabling countries to effect the transitionto information societies. It further implies that ICTs can be used to complementconventional delivery mechanisms, so as to ensure quality and equal education opportunitiesfor all, including traditionally underserved or marginalized groups.Addressing this target effectively means going beyond just connecting schools with ICTinfrastructure and providing the human and physical resources necessary to adapt curricula.It needs to measure to what degree teachers are qualified to use and to teachICTs, since an adequate pool of skilled teachers is a prerequisite for adapting curricula tomeet the needs of the information society. The progress in achieving this target is alsoanalysed in terms of the adoption of computer- and Internet-assisted instruction.Both developing anddeveloped countriesfind it challengingto train a sufficientnumber of teachersThe report finds that guaranteeing an adequate supply of trained teachers remains amajor challenge confronting many countries throughout both the developing and developedworld. A number of developed and developing countries have taken concretesteps to provide teachers with the necessary skills to teach and use ICTs. The percentageof teachers who have ICT qualifications varies from zero to six per cent in countries withavailable data.Major discrepancies also exist in terms of the proportion of primary- and secondaryschoolteachers trained to teach subjects using ICT facilities, with the proportion rangingfrom zero in some countries to 100 per cent in others.Similarly, where data are available on the different forms of ICT-assisted instruction, thevariation across countries is striking. Whereas in a number of countries an ICT-adaptedcurriculum is present for all or a majority of primary and secondary schools, in manydeveloping countries only a small proportion of schools have effectively integrated ICTsas part of the curriculum. Countries that have adopted full-scale implementation ofcomputer- and Internet-assisted instruction in their schools also have a relatively higherproportion of trained teachers, whereas other countries show signs that they are still inthe early stages of implementation.The report also finds that, overall, the level of computer-assisted instruction is higherthan the level of Internet-assisted instruction, suggesting that access to the Internet,which requires the availability of at least basic telecommunication/ICT infrastructure,may be a barrier.More schools usecomputers than theInternet to delivereducational contentTo adapt school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society, and hencefulfil Target 7, policy imperatives must go beyond capital investments in ICT-relatedinfrastructure. It is essential that initiatives also develop ICT-skills building among theteaching force, so that the knowledge can be passed down to students. While manydeveloping countries must continue to commit resources with a view to connecting edu-xxix

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetscational institutions to ICTs, policy-makers must at the same time address the challengesof adapting curricula in primary and secondary schools to meet the demands of an everchangingsociety.Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access totelevision and radio servicesToday, the world’ssurface is coveredby terrestrial and/orsatellite radio and TVsignalsTarget 8 specifically addresses the need to take advantage of broadcasting technologies— often referred to as “older” or traditional ICTs — to help countries move towards theinformation society. In addition to providing access to information and news, includingfor illiterate segments of the population and in the case of emergencies, broadcastingservices can also be employed for educational purposes. They complement printed media,and are particularly important in those countries and areas where Internet penetrationlevels are relatively low, or where the availability of online content in local languagesis limited.To monitor basic access to broadcasting services, it is important to go beyond the coverageof broadcasting signals, and to measure the availability of broadcasting devices (TVsand radios). Furthermore, it is useful to track the availability of multichannel televisionservices, since these provide higher-quality services and more content, important factorsfor increasing demand for and leveraging the benefits of television services.A total of 1.4 billionhouseholds — or fivebillion people — havea TV, half of themwith multichannelservicesThe report finds that Target 8 has largely been achieved in terms of access to broadcastingsignals, the entire world’s surface being covered by terrestrial and/or satellite radioand TV. In terms of the devices that allow people to receive radio and TV services, accessis also widespread: the target has been achieved in the developed world, where almostall households have access to a radio and TV, while in the developing world, a large proportionof households have access to a TV and/or a radio, although penetration ratesvary among countries and regions.TVs tend to be more popular and available than radios in many developing countriesand regions, except Africa. By the end of 2009, there were some 1.4 billion householdswith a TV around the world, providing some five billion people access to a TV at home.This corresponds to a household TV penetration rate of 79 per cent, up from 73 per centin 2002. Europe, the Americas and the CIS all have household television penetrationrates exceeding 90 per cent, followed by the Arab States and Asia and the Pacific with82 and 75 per cent, respectively. Africa stands out since, on average, only 28 per cent ofhouseholds possess a TV.The delivery of multichannel television, including satellite, cable, IPTV and digital terrestrialTV, has spread rapidly over the last decade and, by 2008, close to 50 per centof households with a TV had multichannel services, compared to around 40 per cent in2000.The lack of electricityand content are majorbarriers to overcomingthe broadcastingdivideRadios continue to play an important role in LDCs and in Africa, particularly in rural areaswhere incomes tend to be relatively low and where electricity is limited. In LDCs, radiosare also more prevalent than TVs: around a third of households on average have a TV,compared to two-thirds with a radio. These data suggest that in those countries moreefforts need to be made to bring broadcasting services to all households, in particularin rural areas.The report argues that the broadcasting digital divide is not a pure income divide. Althoughincome is without doubt an important factor, particularly in LDCs, the lack ofelectricity and the lack of content are major barriers that governments need to tackle.Policy-makers can also increase competition in the provision of content (for both TV andxxx

Executive summaryradio services), especially in countries with a limited number of broadcasters. Satelliteservices offer the possibility for most developing countries to ensure nationwide broadcastingcoverage, and countries could take advantage of existing regional systems toincrease the availability of coverage and content. Increasing access to terrestrial digitaland multichannel TV, for example through government subsidies, is an important objectivein the information society and another way of expanding on existing content.Target 9: Encourage the development of content and put in placetechnical conditions in order to facilitate the presence and use ofall world languages on the InternetMost WSIS targets focus on providing Internet access to institutions and citizens. However,access is only part of the story. The true essence of the Internet is that it fosterscommunication between humans (and with networked objects), and allows them toretrieve and exchange meaningful information. This implies that citizens need relevantcontent, in their (local) language. The main objective of Target 9 is to ensure that theInternet serves people worldwide by offering the greatest possible diversity in terms ofcontent and languages.Although discussions on the digital divide often focus on the availability of infrastructure,the lack of local content in local languages is critical: if there is nothing relevantfor people to find on the Internet, they have no reason to go online. Thus, greater availabilityof local content, in local languages, will encourage more people to use the Internet.The development of user-friendly and affordable ICT applications targeted towardscitizens and local communities is critical for increasing Internet use and building an inclusiveinformation society.Until recently, progress on Target 9 has been held back by a number of technical detailswith regard to the representation of different languages on the Internet, as well as theidea that English can act as an Internet lingua franca. However, efforts are increasinglybeing made not only to overcome technical barriers but also to encourage the productionof local content, in local languages. Producing more content in local languages is keyto bringing more people online, especially since it is estimated that only 15 per cent ofthe world population understands English. The proportion of English-speaking Internetusers is indeed declining, falling from 80 per cent in 1996 to around 30 per cent in 2007,reflecting the fact that non-English speakers are increasingly going online.The WSIS process has made an important contribution by acknowledging the issue oflinguistic diversity and ensuring it has received higher priority on the global Internetrelatedpolicy agenda in recent years. Some changes have already taken place, such asthe introduction of non-Latin script web addresses for domain names, reflecting the factthat more than half of the 1.7 billion people who use the Internet today speak languageswith non-Latin scripts. This is likely to increase the demand for linguistic diversity on theInternet, adding a bottom-up driver to the efforts made at the political level and in thecontext of the WSIS process.The number of initiatives to promote linguistic diversity is also rapidly increasing, and thisprocess can be expected to show some tangible results by 2015, with likely increases inthe number of languages that can be used on the Internet, the availability of local content,and the number of language versions of the main software and applications used on theInternet. However, it is difficult to determine precisely what drives the production of contentand what incentives could be provided to stimulate the development of local content.The persistent digitaldivide is at leastpartly related to theissue of languagesand content on theInternetEven though Englishis still the predominantlanguage onthe Internet, only anestimated 15 per centof the world populationunderstands itThe internationalizationof domainnames is expected toincrease demand forlinguistic diversity onthe InternetImplementing Target 9 requires, for example, the development and implementation ofpolicies that promote diversity of cultural expression and indigenous knowledge andxxxi

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetstraditions through the creation of varied information content. This requires, in turn,the development of local content (including through the translation and adaptation ofexisting content), digital archives and diverse forms of digital and traditional media, withsupport from local authorities.It is also important to nurture local capacity for the creation and distribution of softwarein local languages. This calls for technologies and research in areas such as translation,iconographies, and voice-assisted services; the required hardware and software modelscovering character sets, language codes, electronic dictionaries, terminology andthesauri, multilingual search engines, machine-translation tools, internationalized domainnames and content referencing; as well as general and application software whichshould also be available in local languages.Eighty-six per cent ofthe world’s populationis covered bya mobile cellularnetworkBy 2015, more thanhalf of world’s inhabitantsare expectedto be using a mobilephoneBy 2009, 1.7 billionpeople — or 26 percent of the worldpopulation — wereonline and 25 percent of householdshad access to theInternetTarget 10: Ensure that more than half the world’s inhabitantshave access to ICTs within their reachTarget 10 goes to the heart of all the WSIS targets, since the success of creating an informationsociety depends primarily on whether people have access to ICTs.While the target sets a clear and quantifiable goal, i.e. “more than half the world’s inhabitants,”it is vague in terms of the technologies or services concerned (“ICTs”). Twokey technologies which need to be covered are mobile cellular and Internet. Also, it isimportant to monitor not only access to ICTs, but also their actual use. To reflect theimportance of the use of ICTs, the target could be amended to read “Ensure that morethan half the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTs within their reach and make use ofthem.”One of the most striking developments since the conclusion of the Summit, surpassingall possible expectations, has been the rise of mobile telephony in all parts of the world.Mobile cellular network coverage already stands at 86 per cent of the population, and islikely to reach close to 100 per cent by 2015. This would translate into (potential) accessto telephone services for all people in the world.The mid-term review reveals that, with respect to the number of mobile cellular subscriptions,the target has been achieved. By the end of 2009, worldwide mobile cellularpenetration stood at 67 per cent, compared to 20 per cent in 2003, at the time of thefirst phase of the Summit, when few foresaw the rapid take-up of mobile services. Developingcountries surpassed the 50 per cent penetration mark in 2008, and a numberof regions (Europe and CIS) have passed the 100 per cent penetration mark. These penetrationfigures include double counts (because one person may have more than onesubscription or SIM card) and do not therefore equate exactly to the number of actualusers of mobile telephones. Recent data on the number of people who actually use amobile phone show that most developed countries have already achieved Target 10 andmany developing countries are steadily approaching it. If countries manage to sustaincurrent growth rates, The target will be attained, with more than half of world’s inhabitantsexpected to be using a mobile phone by 2015.It is not possible to talk about the information society without measuring how many peopleare using the Internet. By the end of 2009, some 1.7 billion people, or 26 per centof the world population, were online and global Internet user penetration has doubledbetween 2003 and 2009. While developed countries have achieved the target, with anestimated 64 per cent penetration rate at the end of 2009, less than 20 per cent of peoplein the developing world were using the Internet. Data also show that in the majority ofcountries still more men than women use the Internet. Major efforts are required to bringhalf the world population — including half of the female population — online by 2015.xxxii

Executive summaryTarget 10 specifies that ICTs should be “within reach.” The report therefore also examinesthe availability of Internet access at home. Data show that at the end of 2008, some 25per cent of households globally had Internet access. In the developed world, almost 60 percent of households had Internet, compared to only 12 per cent in the developing world.The report finds that the broadband divide remains significant and while some countriesand regions of the world are going increasingly high-speed, others risk falling behind.Whereas in the developed countries most households today enjoy a broadband connection,penetration levels in the developing countries remain much lower. By the end of2009, the fixed (wired) broadband penetration rate of developing countries stood at only3.5 per cent, up from around one per cent in 2003. While these figures refer to broadbandsubscriptions rather than users (and one subscription is likely to benefit several users),they are still a good indication of the long way left to go before reaching the target.However, current developments in the mobile sector are expected to have a major impacton wireless broadband access in the near future. Wireless broadband only startedto take off after the conclusion of WSIS. While penetration rates are still as low as thosefor fixed (wired) broadband, especially in developing countries, an increasing number ofcountries are offering 3G (and now even 4G) services, and the number of subscriptionsis expected to increase rapidly in the near future. Given the importance of high-speedInternet access, the report proposes that Target 10 should aim at ensuring that morethan half the world’s inhabitants have broadband Internet access by 2015.To achieve Target 10, governments need to take action on various fronts. This includesbuilding the necessary infrastructure and providing public access; expanding skills; andcreating relevant and local content. On the infrastructure side, governments need toexploit the potential of wireless broadband by expanding mobile network coverage, including3G coverage, to all segments of the population, and particularly to rural areas,where fixed (wired) networks are limited. Governments can also encourage the uptakeand use of broadband networks by increasing competition to lower the cost of access,and by providing public access for those portions of the population who cannot affordhome access. Increasing the use of ICTs also calls for appropriate policies to provide citizenswith ICT skills and to promote the development of locally relevant content. By creatingan enabling environment for an inclusive information society, governments play akey role in increasing ICT access and use.While most people inthe developed worlduse a broadbandInternet connection,the developing countriesare still far fromreaching the targetTowards 2015The assessment of each of the ten WSIS targets has shown that, since the Summit, thearea where most progress has been made is connecting people via mobile technologies.Mobile cellular network coverage already stands at 86 per cent of the population,and there is every chance it will rise to close to 100 per cent by 2015. Mobile cellulartelephony has grown sharply, and it looks very much like more than half of the worldpopulation will be using a mobile telephone by 2015, thus fulfilling Target 10. Similarly,basic radio and TV services are widely available, and could reach the majority of theworld population by 2015, provided electricity and broadcast content do not form abarrier. Furthermore, global Internet user penetration has doubled between 2003 and2009, and by the end of 2009 around one-quarter of the world population was online —up from around 12 per cent in 2003. Good progress has also been made with respect tobringing Internet access to central governments, research and scientific institutions andto some extent schools, hospitals, museums, libraries and archives, at least in the majorcities of developing countries.Since WSIS, the greatestprogress has beenmade in connectingpeople via mobiletechnologies, butthree-quarters of thepopulation are notyet on the InternetDespite these encouraging trends, by the end of 2009 three-quarters of the world population(and more than 80 per cent of the developing countries’ population) were notxxxiii

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsyet using the Internet, and even fewer via a broadband connection. In most developingcountries, households, schools, hospitals and other public institutions located outsidethe major urban areas are not yet connected to (broadband) Internet. With five moreyears to go to 2015, all stakeholders should step up efforts to bring high-speed Internetto a larger number of people and institutions, especially in the developing world.Turning targets into actionsIn view of the challenges highlighted, and to ensure that the WSIS targets and goals areachieved by 2015, a concerted policy effort is needed on the part of all national, regionaland international stakeholders. It should also be remembered that, given the significantimpact that ICT use has on development in other economic and social areas, progress inICT development will also drive progress towards the attainment of other internationaldevelopment goals, including the MDGs, also set for 2015. Policy action should focus onthree main areas:Access to broadbandInternet for half theworld population by2015ICT skills for ICT useMore online contentin more languages1. Expanding broadband Internet access. Affordable, high-speed Internet access is centralto the development of an information and knowledge-based society. Like the printingpress, electricity or the automobile, Internet is a technology that has far-reachingimpacts on society. Internet, and especially broadband Internet, is increasingly acceptedas a general-purpose technology that dramatically affects the way people communicate,do business, interact with governments and educate and inform themselves. Thisrequires governments to pursue policies that will have a significant impact on Internetusage, including an enhanced effort to deploy (fixed/wired and/or wireless) broadbandinfrastructure and to include broadband in universal access plans. It might be possibleto reach the goal of providing broadband Internet access to at least half the populationby 2015 in view of the rapid spread of wireless broadband. Countries that have not yetdone so should launch 3G networks as soon as possible and take advantage of the opportunitiesthat wireless broadband networks offer, in particular high-speed access tothe Internet. Developing countries need to seize the potential of wireless broadbandfor stimulating competition in the Internet market and increasing access levels. This isparticularly relevant considering that fixed (wired) broadband options are extremelylimited in many developing nations.2. Building an ICT-literate society. In order to be used effectively, ICTs, particularly Internet,require a basic level of ICT literacy. Furthermore, many people around the worldcannot use the Internet and its related applications (in areas such as health, educationor government) because they are illiterate. This is tied to education, and learning opportunitiesmust be universal if ICT use is to expand further. ICTs must be providedin schools, and ICT-skills development should form part of the curriculum. In addition,there are various segments of the population beyond school age who require ICT training.Policy-makers in developing countries, in partnership with the international community,should continue to commit resources to connecting education institutions toICTs and address the multifaceted challenges of adapting curricula in primary and secondaryschools to meet the demands of an ever-changing society.3. Developing online content and applications. Greater availability of local content, inlocal languages, will drive more people to use the Internet. The development of userfriendlyand affordable ICT applications, geared to citizens and local communities, iscritical for increasing Internet use and building an inclusive information society. Thismust include initiatives and applications in the areas of e-health, e-government and e-business. In order to make content accessible to local communities, language diversity isof vital importance. Digitizing books, documents, exhibits and collections available in locallibraries, museums, archives and cultural institutions could dramatically increase theavailability of online content in local languages. Yet “e-culture” is often overlooked innational ICT strategies. The digitization and online availability of existing content shouldbe a policy priority, and there are many best-practice examples that governments couldxxxiv

Executive summaryfollow. With more than half of the Internet users speaking languages with non-Latinscripts, the recent opening up of Internet domain names to non-Latin script charactersis an important development that needs to be continued. This is likely to increase thedemand for content in local languages and can serve as an important driver from theuser side, to complement government-initiated projects.Monitoring progressFor each of the ten targets, the report has identified a set of measurable indicators,which could be used by countries in their monitoring efforts. The WSIS Mid-term ReviewTable (at the end of the chapter “Conclusions and the way forward’) summarizes themain results of the report, including proposed revisions to the targets to facilitate measurement,the most relevant action lines, and the indicators proposed to monitor eachof the targets. The table also provides an overall assessment of the status of the targetsand the indicators for which data were available. It shows that, whereas in developedcountries most indicators have a high level of achievement, this is not the case in developingcountries, where only few indicators have reached a high level of achievementand most indicators are still at a low level.In developed countries,most indicatorsshow a highlevel of achievement,whereas in developingcountries mostindicators still showlow levelsThe phrasing of the existing targets is sometimes vague, making it problematical to interpretthe targets and select appropriate indicators. For measurement purposes, somerevisions to the wording are desirable, including the deletion or addition of components,and the definition of more concrete targets. These suggestions may be found throughoutthe report.Some areas, although vital to the development of the information society, are notcovered anywhere in the targets. The most critical of these is the use of ICTs in business,which is essential for participation in today’s knowledge-based economy and isaddressed in WSIS Action Line C7. The report therefore proposes that a new target beadded: “Connect all businesses with ICTs.” Indicators for measuring ICT use by businesseshave been developed by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development andare collected by an increasing number of countries. Other areas not addressed by thetargets are e-agriculture and e-environment, which are also included in Action Line C7;building confidence and security (Action Line C5); and the ethical dimensions of the informationsociety (Action Line C10). Progress in these areas should also be monitored,and indicators defined to this end.Limited data availability has constituted a major constraint in the preparation of thismid-term review. Even the most basic indicators chosen are often not collected at thenational (or international) levels, or are outdated. It was therefore not possible to makea comprehensive, global assessment of all targets.In the absence of data, it will be difficult to assess whether the WSIS goals and targetsare met by 2015. This is particularly alarming in the case of developing countries, whereICT penetration levels are lower and which are lagging behind on several of the targets.There is therefore an urgent need for governments to collect the data required for monitoringprogress towards achieving the WSIS targets by 2015, and beyond.The WSIS targetsneed to be revisedGovernments andinternational stakeholdersneed tocollect data to monitorprogress towards2015The international community also needs to step in to assist countries in the measurementprocess. The indicators presented in this report can serve as a starting point, butthey need to be further refined, and perhaps expanded, in consultation with the WSIScommunity. As a follow-up to this report, it is therefore proposed that a monitoringprocess be established under the framework of the Partnership on Measuring ICT forDevelopment, which has been tasked by the WSIS outcome documents, as well as by theUnited Nations Economic and Social Council, to track progress towards the WSIS targets.In close collaboration with relevant stakeholders, a final matrix for all targets and actionlines should be presented as soon as possible and disseminated widely in order to helpxxxv

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetscountries in their monitoring efforts. Data should be compiled on a continuous basis and regular quantitative updatesof progress made on the goals should be prepared by the partners. A final report should then be prepared for 2015,setting forth a global assessment of progress achieved in reaching the WSIS targets.xxxvi

IntroductionIntroductionThe World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), held in Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005), brought together governments,civil society and the business sector to discuss a broad range of subjects related to information and communicationtechnology (ICT) for development. In the end, governments agreed on a set of commitments and actionsto foster the establishment of an inclusive information society. In particular, ten targets were identified in the GenevaPlan of Action [ITU, 2005], along with numerous recommendations based on different action lines. The targets, to beachieved by 2015, range from connecting villages, schools, health centres, libraries and government agencies to developingcontent, incorporating ICTs in school curricula and providing broadcasting services to all people in the world.The action lines address issues related to — among others — ICT infrastructure, capacity building, cybersecurity, anenabling policy environment and ICT applications in agriculture, education, business or the environment. The TunisAgenda for the Information Society [ITU, 2005] complemented the list by calling for increased financing of ICTs in thedeveloping world as well as continued discussion of Internet regulatory issues through the newly established InternetGovernance Forum (IGF).In view of this broad range of topics and related programmes and policies to be implemented by national, regionaland international stakeholders, assessing progress made since WSIS is a challenging task. There are several mechanismsand processes that endeavour to review implementation of the WSIS outcomes and commitments, which arediscussed further below. So far, none of them has produced a systematic overview of progress made in terms ofachieving the objectives, targets and goals of the Summit.This World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report (WTDR) looks at the ten WSIS targets identified in the GenevaPlan of Action (Box 1). The year 2010 marks the midpoint between the Tunis phase of WSIS (2005) and thedeadline for achieving the WSIS targets (2015), which is also the target date for the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). This report thus provides a mid-term review of the progress made towards achieving the ten WSIS targets.No formal monitoring process was put in place by the Summit, and no global assessment of the targets has beenmade to date. Similarly, there are no agreed indicators for all of the targets that countries could use for monitoringpurposes. While a core list of ICT indicators has been identified by the international community (Box 2), the WSIStargets go far beyond these core indicators, covering subjects that are challenging to capture in quantitative terms,let alone to compare at the international level.This report fills this gap and sheds some light on the issue of monitoring and evaluating the WSIS outcomes. Theoverall objective of this WTDR is to provide policy-makers with a comprehensive assessment of achievement of theWSIS targets to date, identify the gaps to be filled by 2015 and, based on the findings, make suggestions on the typeof measures that could be taken in order to meet the targets within the time-frame.Another goal of the report is to make policy-makers aware of the need to monitor information society targets, highlightingbest international practices. The report also identifies specific quantitative indicators for tracking the targets,along the lines of the internationally agreed indicators used for tracking the MDGs.1

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 1: What are the WSIS targets?Section B of the Geneva Plan of Action (§§ 4-7) identifies objectives, goals and targets for building an inclusive informationsociety. It calls upon countries to establish national targets as part of national ICT strategies, which could serve as benchmarksfor actions and for evaluating progress. To guide countries in setting national targets, a set of international targets were established,based on the MDGs, to “serve as global references for improving connectivity and access in the use of ICTs in promotingthe objectives of the Plan of Action, to be achieved by 2015.”The ten targets are as follows:1. To connect villages with ICTs and establish community access points2. To connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs3. To connect scientific and research centres with ICTs4. To connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTs5. To connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs6. To connect all local and central government departments and establish websites and e-mail addresses7. To adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society, taking into accountnational circumstances8. To ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio services9. To encourage the development of content and put in place technical conditions in order to facilitate the presence anduse of all world languages on the Internet10. To ensure that more than half the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTs within their reach.Section E of the Geneva Plan of Action (§ 28) calls for realistic international performance evaluation and benchmarking tofollow up implementation of the objectives, goals and targets agreed at WSIS. The only indicators that were specified are communityconnectivity and gender-specific indicators. No indicators directly linked to the targets (or any other outcomes) wereidentified, and no recommendations were made on the process of evaluation or tracking of the targets.WSIS follow-up and implementationSince the conclusion of the Summit at the end of 2005, the primary focus of attention (at both national and internationallevels) has been implementation of the WSIS outcomes, in particular the topics identified under the variousaction lines (Action Lines C1 – C11). Several mechanisms have been put in place to this end.a) The Tunis Agenda identified several international organizations to facilitate the implementation of specific actionlines. 1 The facilitation process started after the conclusion of the Summit, with annual meetings of “action line facilitators.”2 In 2009, the action line facilitation meetings were organized for the first time under the umbrella of the WSISForum, in order to ensure coherent presentation and discussion of recent developments in the information societyand of implementation of the WSIS action lines. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has played a keyrole in hosting and facilitating the annual meetings and the WSIS Forum.b) The United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) meets annually, to coordinate implementation ofthe WSIS outcomes among UN agencies. It was mandated by the Tunis Agenda (§ 103). The group, which has beenco-chaired by ITU, the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), and, recently, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD), is planning a number of joint activities until 2015. 3UNGIS member organizations follow up on the implementation of WSIS outcomes in their respective areas of workand within their intergovernmental frameworks. 4 ITU has been given a key role in the implementation of several ofthe WSIS action lines, and the work programme of ITU’s Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) reflects alarge number of topics addressed by the Geneva Plan of Action. 5c) The Geneva Plan of Action (§ 28) proposes that a website be launched to collect best practices and success stories.Accordingly, ITU initiated the WSIS stocktaking databases, a compilation of (several thousands of) ICT-related2

Introductionactivities and projects carried out by governments, international organizations, civil society and businesses. The TunisAgenda encouraged the continuation of the ITU stocktaking database (§ 120), which was updated in 2008, the nextedition being planned for 2010. 6d) A formal follow-up of the WSIS outcomes was mandated, to be overseen by the UN Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC) (Tunis Agenda, § 105). At its 2006 session, ECOSOC instructed the UN Commission on Science and Technologyfor Development (CSTD) to be “the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular in the review and assessmentof progress made in implementing the outcomes of the Summit.” 7 Since then, CSTD has reviewed progress at itsannual sessions, and it gathers contributions from international organizations for the UN Secretary-General’s annualReport on WSIS implementation and follow-up. 8WSIS monitoring and evaluationThe above-mentioned post-WSIS mechanisms illustrate that the international community is deploying great effortsto advance the development of the information society by implementing and facilitating relevant policies and programmes.While there are several reporting mechanisms in place, they are primarily qualitative in nature, such asreviewing progress in the implementation of action lines, or collecting country and case studies and informationon ongoing projects. Little attention has been paid to quantitative assessment or review of achievements based oncomparable cross-country, statistical indicators. Yet policy implementation requires that results be monitored, so asto assess whether the policies have been successful.A number of provisions of the WSIS outcome documents address the subject of quantitatively reviewing, monitoringand evaluating progress:The Geneva Plan of Action (§ 28) calls for the establishment of comparable indicators, including community connectivityand gender-specific indicators; the regular publication of a composite index; monitoring of the digital divide;and the assessment of universal accessibility to ICTs.The Tunis Agenda takes this a step further by providing a set of suggestions related to the “periodic evaluation” ofthe WSIS outcomes (§§ 112-120). In particular, it acknowledges the work of the Partnership on Measuring ICT forDevelopment (Box 2) in developing a core list of indicators and building statistical capacity in developing countriesfor monitoring their information societies. The Tunis Agenda also requests the UN General Assembly to conduct anoverall review of implementation of the WSIS outcomes in 2015.Although some stakeholders (notably the members of the Partnership) have actively addressed the important issueof measurement, only a few countries have carried out a regular evaluation of progress made in their informationsocieties. While some basic ICT data are widely available (for example, the number of fixed telephone lines, radios,TVs, mobile subscriptions), more is needed to assess the WSIS goals and targets, as well as the implementation ofaction lines.The WSIS targets are not only very broad, but also do not include measurable indicators, which makes monitoringsomething of a challenging proposition and international comparisons almost impossible. For example, six of thetargets refer to “connecting” villages, schools, governments, and so forth with ICTs, without however specifying whatis meant by “connectivity with ICTs” (e.g. telephone, Internet, computer, …), who should be connected (e.g. teachers,students, …) and what the connectivity should achieve (e.g. increased knowledge, transparency, health, productivityand/or efficiency, …). While the most basic connection could be a telephone connection, in today’s world Internet —and preferably broadband — is often viewed as the most important type of connection worldwide, in particular withreference to the information society.To address these challenges, this report interprets the targets, by defining some of the terminology used, and proposesa number of indicators for benchmarking that could be collected by countries before 2015, when a final evaluationshould be made. Besides access to ICTs (“connectivity” in the simplest meaning of the term), in order to maximizetheir impact it is critical that ICTs be actually used in practice by various stakeholders (people, public and privateinstitutions). Therefore, for several of the targets, the report proposes ICT usage indicators, plus indicators relatedto content and applications.3

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 2: The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development and WSIS 9Following the Geneva Summit in December 2003, the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (hereinafter the Partnership)was launched at UNCTAD XI (held in Brazil) in June 2004. Its members, at that time, were the three founding members(UNCTAD, ITU and OECD); the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS); four UN Regional Commissions (UNECLAC; UNESCWA;UNESCAP; and UNECA); the UN ICT Task Force (whose mandate expired at the end of 2005); and the World Bank. Eurostat officiallyjoined the Partnership in February 2005 and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) in May 2009.During the initial phase of the Partnership, emphasis was placed on building awareness at the national and international levelsof the importance of ICT measurement for policy-making, and on developing agreed standards and methodologies to enhancethe production of internationally comparable ICT statistics. The Partnership was an active contributor to the WSIS Tunis preparatorymeetings and the Summit itself. This included the organization of a WSIS thematic meeting (February, 2005) resultingin the first core list of agreed ICT indicators; a series of regional ICT measurement events; and written inputs to the discussionand preparation of the WSIS outcome documents (Tunis Agenda). During the Tunis Summit, a parallel event was organized bythe Partnership, to present the agreed core list of indicators to policy-makers, together with an accompanying methodologicalpublication [Partnership, 2005a]; to debate the importance of measuring the information society for ICT policy-makingand development; and to launch a publication providing an overview of the status and availability of ICT indicators worldwide[Partnership, 2005b].As a result of this work, the Tunis Agenda recognized the need for ICT measurement (§§ 112-119), and made specific referenceto the Partnership (§§ 114-115):“114. The development of ICT indicators is important for measuring the digital divide. We note the launch, in June 2004, of thePartnership on Measuring ICT for Development, and its efforts:a) to develop a common set of core ICT indicators; to increase the availability of internationally comparable ICT statisticsas well as to establish a mutually agreed framework for their elaboration, for further consideration and decision by theUN Statistical Commission;b) to promote capacity building in developing countries for monitoring the information society;c) to assess the current and potential impact of ICTs on development and poverty reduction;d) to develop specific gender-disaggregated indicators to measure the digital divide in its various dimensions.115. We also note the launch of the ICT Opportunity Index and the Digital Opportunity Index, which will build upon the commonset of core ICT indicators as they were defined within the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development.”Following the Tunis Summit, the core list of ICT indicators was further refined and presented to the UN Statistical Commission(UNSC) in 2007 [Partnership, 2007], which endorsed the list and encouraged the Partnership to update it, especially withregard to measuring the use of ICT in education and in government — two areas that figure prominently in the WSIS targets;the contribution of ICT to economic growth and social development; and barriers to use of the technology. A revised core listwas presented by the Partnership to UNSC in 2009, and published in 2010 [Partnership, 2010].Six years after its inception, the Partnership is recognized as a key international player in the area of ICT statistics. Membersof the Partnership regularly report on progress made at meetings of the WSIS Forum, CSTD, UNGIS and action line facilitators,as well as at other events and conferences not directly related to WSIS.ITU has been an active member of the Partnership from the very beginning, and is part of its Steering Committee (alongwith UNCTAD and ECLAC). For more information about the Partnership and its activities, see http://www.itu.int/ict andhttp://measuring-ict.unctad.org.Important ICT developments have taken place in recent years (especially since the Geneva phase of the Summit)which were not anticipated at the time of WSIS. The most striking example is the rise of mobile telephony and itsassociated applications. The emergence of Web 2.0 and user-created content on the Internet are also shaping today’sdevelopment of the information society. On the technology side, the launch of new standards in the mobilesector, the convergence of technologies (such as broadcasting and telecommunication) and the steady expansion ofhigh-speed communication infrastructure have significantly changed the way ICTs are accessed and used, and theireconomic and socio-economic impact is ever increasing. Indeed, today the Internet is largely recognized as a generalpurposetechnology, and broadband is regarded as a basic infrastructure, in the same way as electricity, water or4

Introductionroads. Many citizens even consider the Internet as a “fundamental human right,” and some countries have started toput in place legislation stipulating that access to the Internet is a human right for their citizens. 10 Such developmentsneed to be taken into consideration when reviewing the WSIS targets and their achievement, and appropriate adjustmentsto the targets need to be made.Methodology for preparing the reportGiven the broad range of subjects covered by the WSIS outcome documents and the targets, this WTDR has beendrafted in close collaboration with other UN agencies and stakeholders, in particular UIS (Targets 2 and 7), the WorldHealth Organization (WHO) (Target 5) and UNDESA (Target 6). Representatives from civil society, especially the Networksand Development Foundation (FUNREDES), have provided substantive inputs to the chapter covering Target 9.The data presented in this report are collected at the international level by ITU and the above-mentioned organizations.They have been supplemented by additional research on the indicators selected for each target. The reportpresents a mid-term review based on the latest available data, which often relate to 2008, and only some to 2009. Forsome targets (such as, for example, Target 9 on language diversity on the Internet, an area that is not likely to changequickly), the most recent data may go back even further.Since many of the WSIS targets stretch beyond the currently internationally available ICT data, a questionnaire wassent to all ITU Member States between September and November 2009 (Box 3). This “Survey on the WSIS targets”requested quantitative information on each of the ten targets. A total of 48 countries responded to the survey. Theinformation provided by countries is featured throughout the report.Box 3: ITU Survey on the WSIS targetsWith a view to preparing WTDR, ITU carried out a survey of its Member States in 2009. The survey requested quantitative informationon each of the ten WSIS targets, although questions on indicators already collected by ITU or by other internationalorganizations through their regular data collection processes were not included.A total of 48 countries responded to the survey (see Annex 1 for a complete list of respondents), but not all countries repliedto all questions on the different targets. An analysis of the results of the questionnaire shows that the number of replies perindicator varied between nine (on the “percentage of cultural centres with access to the Internet”) and 26 (on the “percentageof public libraries and post offices with access to the Internet”). On average, each question elicited around 20 replies,which is only about ten per cent of all countries that received the questionnaire.This relatively low response rate points to a number of factors. First, it could be an indication that only a few countries are currentlytracking the WSIS targets, given that the Summit did not identify a concrete set of indicators, nor initiate a monitoringprocess. Second, it could mean that even if some of the data are available within a country, they are not compiled or centralizedwithin one government agency or ministry. This may be especially true insofar as the issues covered by WSIS span a verybroad range of topics that are dealt with by different ministries and government agencies. Finally, and linked to the previouspoint, it should be borne in mind that the questionnaire was sent to ITU’s constituency, i.e. the telecommunication/ICTrelatedministries and regulatory authorities. These institutions may not necessarily be aware of data collected by other governmententities. As a result, it is likely that data which might be available in some countries are not reflected in this report.Ten targets, ten chaptersThe report features ten substantive chapters, each covering one of the WSIS targets. Each chapter includes:• A discussion of how the target could or should be interpreted, its context, rationale and expected impact, itsrelevance for development of the information society and its link to the WSIS action lines. In some cases, proposalsare formulated for more precise definitions of the target, or revisions of the target’s wording.5

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• Information on the availability of existing indicators and data that could be used to monitor the target, theiradvantages and shortcomings, as well as the difficulties in identifying and tracking certain indicators.• A concrete proposal for a limited number of quantitative indicators for monitoring the target, and the rationalebehind them.• An overview of what has been achieved so far, with regional and global data and country examples, includingsuccess stories and best-practice policies.• An assessment of gaps, and what is being done to address them; a discussion of the likelihood of reaching thetarget by 2015; a set of policy recommendations and measures that could be implemented in order to meet thetarget by 2015.6

IntroductionNotes1See Annex to the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [ITU, 2005].2More information about the meetings of the action line facilitators is available at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/.3For further information, see http://www.ungis.org/Default.aspx?tabid=620.4For example, the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS) was created in 2002, and in November 2006 the ITU PlenipotentiaryConference requested WG-WSIS to facilitate membership input and guidance on ITU’s implementation of relevant WSIS outcomes and toelaborate proposals to the ITU Council that may be necessary for adapting ITU to its role in building the information society(http://www.itu.int/council/groups/wsis/).5See ITU/BDT Doha Action Plan 2006 [ITU, 2006], § 3.2 (IV) on inclusion of the WSIS outcomes in the ITU-D activities (p. 5 and Annex 1), at:http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/conferences/wtdc/2006/pdf/dohaactionplan.pdf.6http://www.itu.int/wsis/stocktaking/index.html.7See ECOSOC Resolution 2006/46, available at: http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents/2006/resolutions/Resolution%202006-46.pdf.8See http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4239&lang=1 for further information on CSTD.9For further information, see [Partnership, 2008] and http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/partnership/index.html.10Based on a survey of 27 000 adults in 26 countries carried out by BBC in 2010, around three-quarters of interviewees considered Internetaccess as a human right (see http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm). Countries that have ruled that access to Internetis a human right for their citizens include Finland, France and Estonia.7

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesInternational Telecommunication Union (2005), World Summit on the Information Society outcome documents,Geneva.International Telecommunication Union (2006), Final Report, World Telecommunication Development Conference(WTDC-06), Geneva.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2005a), Core ICT Indicators, New York/Geneva.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2005b), Measuring ICT: The Global Status of ICT Indicators, NewYork/Geneva.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2007), “Report of the Partnership on Measuring Information andCommunication Technologies for Development: information and communication technology statistics,” Reportto the UN Statistical Commission, Thirty-eighth session,http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc07/2007-5e-ICT.pdf.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2008), The Global Information Society: a Statistical View 2008,Santiago, Chile.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010), Core ICT Indicators 2010, Geneva.8

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsTarget 1: Connect villages with ICTs andestablish community access points 1IntroductionAlthough Target 1 does not explicitly mention “rural” populations, it is implicit from the use of the word “village” 2that the focus is on connecting people living in rural areas. In most countries, especially developing countries, thereis a large gap in the availability of information and communication technologies (ICTs) between urban and rural locations,and Target 1 is important for ensuring that rural areas are not excluded from the information society. Becauseof their isolation, rural areas arguably stand to derive even more benefit from connectivity, since ICTs can deliverhealth, education and other services that might be less widely available there.There are two activities associated with this target: 1) connecting villages with ICTs, and 2) establishing communityaccess points. The second underpins the first, in that one of the most practical methods of providing ICTs in rural areasin many developing countries is through shared access. Given that incomes tend to be lower in rural locations comparedto urban areas, and many rural households simply cannot afford ICTs, shared access is a cost-effective means ofproviding rural connectivity. The establishment of community access points is also related to Target 4 on connectingpublic locations that can be used for shared access, such as libraries and post offices, and likewise to Target 10, whichsets the goal of ensuring that more than half the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTs within their reach. Abouthalf of the world’s inhabitants live in rural areas, and one way of getting ICTs to them is through community access.Insofar as the majority of the population in developed countries lives in urban areas and, moreover, rural areas inthose countries are in any case fairly well equipped in terms of connectivity (ITU estimates that 95 per cent of ruralareas in developed countries are covered by a mobile cellular network signal), the main focus of this chapter is necessarilyon developing nations. It does not, however, address exclusively developing countries, since even developednations still face some of the challenges of bringing ICTs to rural areas, particularly in terms of Internet and broadbandaccess.Target 1 is related to all the WSIS action lines, since connecting the places where people live with ICTs is one of themost basic requirements for creating an information society. In some cases, there is a direct linkage:9

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• Action Line C2 (Information and communication infrastructure: an essential foundation for the information society)highlights that “infrastructure is central in achieving the goal of digital inclusion, enabling universal, sustainable,ubiquitous and affordable access to ICTs by all, … to provide sustainable connectivity and access to remoteand marginalized areas at national and regional levels.” 3 This action line also calls on governments to provideICT connectivity for schools, libraries, post offices, community centres and other institutions accessible to thepublic. This is directly related to the establishment of community access points, which is part of the target. Theaction line further calls for strengthening national broadband network infrastructure, which is critical for rollingout high-speed Internet access to rural areas. It also advocates national e-strategies to cater for disadvantagedand vulnerable groups, who are often found in rural areas, and refers to unused wireless capacity, includingsatellite, for providing access in remote areas.• Action Line C3 (Access to information and knowledge) is directly linked to Target 1 as it states that “Governments,and other stakeholders, should establish sustainable multipurpose community public access points, providingaffordable or free-of-charge access for their citizens to the various communication resources, notablythe Internet. These access points should, to the extent possible, have sufficient capacity to provide assistance tousers, in libraries, educational institutions, public administrations, post offices or other public places, with specialemphasis on rural and underserved areas....” 4• Action Line C4 (Capacity building) is directly linked to Target 1, in that basic ICT literacy skills are essential formaking use of the connectivity supplied to villages and via community access. Indeed, it explicitly refers to thispotential: “Promote e-literacy skills for all... taking advantage of existing facilities such as libraries, multipurposecommunity centres, public access points”... It also calls for the empowerment of “local communities, especiallythose in rural and underserved areas, in ICT use and promote the production of useful and socially meaningfulcontent for the benefit of all.” 5Another important issue is to ensure that once villages are connected with ICTs, they deliver relevant applications andcontent for people in rural areas. The availability of relevant applications and content is addressed in Action Lines C7(ICT applications) and C8 (Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content), as well as C9 (Media),which makes reference to the need to reduce regional imbalances in infrastructure and to use “traditional media tobridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate the flow of cultural content, particularly in rural areas.” 6Measuring Target 1 — Proposed indicators 7Like other WSIS targets, Target 1 is vague in terms of the type of ICTs to which it refers. Five indicators are proposedfor measuring and tracking Target 1 (Table 1.1). Three of these will help track the availability of ICTs in rural areas,Table 1.1: Indicators for measuring Target 1Aspect .measuredRuralconnectivityCommunityconnectivityProposed indicator1. Percentage of rural population covered by a mobile cellular telephone network,broken down by technology (2G, 3G)2. Proportion of rural households with a telephone, broken down by type ofnetwork (fixed and/or mobile, mobile only, fixed only)3. Proportion of rural households with Internet access, broken down by typeof access (narrowband, broadband)4. Percentage of localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs), brokendown by size of locality, or by urban/ruralPartnership coreindicatorA75. Location of individual use of the Internet in the last 12 months HH8HH3HH6A1010

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsbile coverage could be analysed by locality, this kind of data are not widely available. Instead, the common way ofexpressing mobile coverage is in terms of population (or territory) within range of a signal. This indicator has beenadopted by the international statistical community as a core indicator: percentage of population covered by a mobilecellular telephone network. The indicator refers to “the percentage of a country’s inhabitants that live within areasserved by a mobile cellular signal, irrespective of whether or not they choose to use it.” 13 It therefore refers to thetheoretical ability to use mobile cellular services if a person has a cellular telephone and a subscription. It also refersto terrestrial mobile coverage. 14National mobile population coverage figures are available for many countries and published by both regulators andoperators. Mobile population coverage could be dissected into urban and rural coverage, though data are not typicallycompiled in this manner. For the purposes of this report, the percentage of rural population covered by a mobilecellular telephone network has been calculated on the assumption that at least all urban areas are covered, with anyremaining coverage assigned to rural areas. 15Another way of measuring rural ICT accessibility is at the household level. Household telephone penetration is thebasic measure of universal service and is an unambiguous measurement, since a household is a well-defined statisticalconcept and the maximum penetration level is 100 per cent. Household penetration is also useful for gauging howtheoretical access in localities or mobile coverage translate into practical ICT use.A growing number of countries measure the availability of at least some ICTs in households. In addition, data are increasinglydisaggregated by urban and rural location. This makes household ICT penetration an attractive complement to otherindicators for measuring rural access. Tracking household penetration is increasingly relevant to middle-income nationsthat are making the transition from universal access to universal service. In low-income countries, policies should be morefocused on universal access aimed at enhancing coverage and providing community services. It should be noted that acountry’s income level need not be the sole criterion influencing whether emphasis should be placed on universal accessor universal service. The link between income level and some types of ICT penetration has become increasingly tenuousover the years, particularly for mobile telephony, which has low barriers to entry (e.g. declining handset prices, prepaid).In the context of the target, relevant household indicators would be1. Proportion of rural households with a telephone, broken down by:• fixed and/or mobile telephone• mobile only• fixed only2. Proportion of rural households with Internet access, broken down by:• narrowband access• broadband accessThese indicators have been adopted by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. 16Measuring community connectivityWhile deploying ICT infrastructure to villages or rural areas is a first step, rural inhabitants then need a way to actuallyuse those ICT services in practice; hence the importance of “establishing community access points.” Target 1 recognizesthe importance of providing shared services where citizens do not have access to ICTs at home, as is the case inmany low-income countries, especially LDCs.The Partnership has defined the following type of community access point, which can be used to measure this target:A public Internet access centre (PIAC) is a site, location, or centre of instruction at which Internet access is made availableto the public, on a full-time or part-time basis. PIACs include telecentres, digital community centres, Internetcafés, libraries, education centres and other similar establishments, whenever they offer Internet access to the generalpublic. All such centres should have at least one public computer for Internet access. 17The Partnership proposes the indicator A10: Percentage of localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs). Theindicator is computed by dividing the number of localities with at least one PIAC by the total number of localities in12

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsthe country, and then multiplying by 100. The indicator should be broken down by size of locality, or by urban/rurallocalities. It reflects how many (urban/rural) localities in a country have a PIAC.A related indicator would be the Partnership indicator HH8: Location of individual use of the Internet in the last12 months, since two of the proposed range of locations are a “Community Internet access facility” or a “CommercialInternet access facility.” This indicator is useful for measuring the demand side of public Internet facilities.The community access target is also related to Target 4, particularly in regard to connectivity in public locations suchas libraries and post offices, which can serve as public access locations. The establishment of community accesspoints can also help to achieve Target 10, namely ensuring that half of the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTswithin their reach.Status of Target 1Given the problems with defining the term “village” and the lack of data on village connectivity, it is very difficult totrack the target in terms of the proportion of villages with ICTs. In 2008, ITU published some data on the percentageof localities with different ICTs, by region. It found that in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, only 12 per cent of localitieshad telephone access and 1.4 per cent had access to the Internet [ITU, 2008].One of the problems is that the data on which these estimates are established date back to between 2000 and 2006,and only very few countries in the world collect data by locality. Two exceptions are China and India. China recentlyannounced that by the end of 2009, “voice telephony services were available to 99.86% of the country’s administrativevillages (up from 98% a year earlier), while internet access covered 91.5% (up from 89%), according to datafrom the regulator MIIT.” 18 India has pursued a longstanding goal of providing its reported 593 485 villages with atelephone. By December 2008, no fewer than 539 448 villages (91 per cent) had a telephone [TRAI, 2008]. While thismeans that the world’s two largest developing nations — China and India — have largely attained Target 1 whenmeasured by telephone access in villages, most other countries do not track village connectivity, even though manyhave initiated projects to connect rural areas. 19Nor is the success of fixed lines likely to be replicated in many of the world’s least developed countries. Fixed telephoneline growth has stagnated in most countries, overtaken by wireless communications. The cost of installingwireless systems in rural areas is far less than that of fixed telephony, so it does not make economic sense to equipvillages with fixed telephone lines.Given the rapid growth of wireless communications, a more appropriate indicator for measuring progress towards Target1 is the percentage of rural population within reach of a mobile cellular signal. Existing data on the percentage of therural population covered by a mobile cellular telephone network suggests that almost three quarters of the world’s ruralinhabitants were covered by a mobile cellular signal by the end of 2008 (Table 1.2). The highest coverage is in Europe,where practically all inhabitants of rural areas enjoy a mobile signal. Although the lowest rural coverage is in Africa,2008 was a watershed year, with over half of the continent’s rural citizens now covered by mobile telephony. Africa alsorecorded the biggest increase in rural mobile population coverage between 2000 and 2008 (Chart 1.1).Based on recent trends, it seems possible that almost all regions will achieve full mobile coverage of rural populationsbefore 2015. The one exception is Africa, but even there rural coverage could exceed 90 per cent by 2015. Completemobile coverage of all rural areas around the world by 2015, or even earlier, would appear achievable with the rightpolicy emphasis.Given the increase in the number of wireless broadband networks and subscriptions, the indicator should be brokendown by technology (2G, 3G, and eventually 4G). Many operators and an increasing number of regulators, includingFrance’s ARCEP and the United Kingdom’s Ofcom (Table 1.3), are tracking 3G population coverage, particularly in orderto track network coverage commitments. 20 ITU is planning to add a new indicator to track 3G/4G mobile populationcoverage to its list of indicators.While an increasing number of developing countries are starting to collect data on the proportion of households witha fixed and/or mobile telephone through official household surveys, some developed countries do not (or no longer)13

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 1.2: Rural population covered by a mobile cellular signal, 2008Overall mobilecellularcoverage (%)Rural populationcovered (%)Rural populationcovered(millions)Ruralpopulationnot covered(millions)Africa 69 52 253 230Americas 93 73 136 50Arab States 94 86 115 18Asia and the Pacific 85 76 1 720 533CIS 94 83 83 17Europe 99 98 159 3WORLD 86 74 2 466 852Note: The rural population covered by a mobile cellular signal is calculated by the following formula:Proportion of rural population covered by a mobile cellular signal=(Proportion of total population covered by a mobile cellular signal x Total population) — Urban populationRural populationSource: ITU.Chart 1.1: Rural population covered by a mobile signal, .2000-2008, by region%10090807060504030201002000 2002 2004 2006 2008Source: ITU.EuropeArab StatesCISAsia andthe PacificWORLDAmericasAfricatrack this indicator. The European Union collecteddata on households’ share of main telephone linesfor a number of years, but discontinued the seriesas far back as 2006. It has never collected data onrural household access to telephones.The latest available household survey data suggestthat in most countries there are more ruralhouseholds with mobile phones than fixed lines.The exceptions are Canada, Kyrgyzstan and Bosniaand Herzegovina, where more householdshave a fixed telephone than a mobile phone(Charts 1.2 and 1.3). One explanation is that fixedtelephone calls in these countries are relativelycheap or even free, as is the case in Canada, sopeople have a strong incentive to keep theirlandline. In several countries from the Americasregion, including Paraguay, El Salvador, Chile,Guatemala, and Nicaragua, household access isdominated by mobile phones, and less than fiveper cent of households have a fixed telephone.The mobile phone is also very dominant in a number of low-income developing countries in Africa, includingBurkina Faso, Uganda and Cameroon, and in Asia and the Pacific, confirming that mobile cellular technology isplaying a crucial role in expanding communication networks (Box 1.1).Overall, the proportion of rural households that have a mobile telephone ranges from as low as four per cent in theDemocratic Republic of the Congo to 95 per cent in Japan (Chart 1.2). Existing data, which are available for almost40 countries at very different stages of development and across all regions, show that while low-income developingcountries tend to have relatively few households with a mobile telephone, many developing countries, including Armenia,Egypt, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Ukraine and the Philippines have reached penetration levels above50 per cent. Fixed telephone penetration, on the other hand, remains very limited in most rural households, with14

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsTable 1.3: Population covered by a mobile signal in 2008 across the United Kingdom and nations2G % 3G%United Kingdom-wide 98 87England 99 91Wales 92 67Scotland 89 67Northern Ireland 92 43Note: Figures show the percentage of population within postcode districts where at least one or more operators had at least 90% 2G and90% area coverage.Source: Ofcom. Mobile Evolution. Ofcom’s mobile sector assessment. December 2009.penetration levels as low as 0.1, 0.4 and two per cent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burkina Faso andNicaragua, respectively.Chart 1.3, which shows the proportion of rural households that have only either a mobile phone or a fixed telephoneconfirms these findings. Except for Canada, Kyrgyzstan and Bosnia and Herzegovina, rural households tend to relymore on mobile telephony as their sole means of communication. Compared to Chart 1.2, it also highlights that inChart 1.2: Proportion of rural households with telephone by type, 2007-08100%806040200Congo (D.R.)RwandaBenin*Sierra LeoneBurkina FasoZambiaUganda*KyrgyzstanNepalCameroonBoliviaBangladeshNicaraguaGuyana*Namibia*NigeriaGhanaSenegal*Guatemala*ArmeniaEgyptChile*EcuadorDominican Rep.UkraineCosta RicaPhilippinesBosnia and Herz.HondurasCanadaCambodiaEl SalvadorParaguayMaldives*MauritiusTurkeyJordanOmanJapan% of rural households with fixed telephone % of rural households with mobile telephoneNote: * Data refer to 2006.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.15

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 1.1: The spread of mobile telephony in rural areas: an example from Paraguay and JordanChart 1 Box 1.1: Percentage of rural households with a .mobile telephone, Paraguay908070605040302010015 1619 21Note: Data between surveys have been estimated.Source: Adapted from DGEEC (Encuesta Permanente de Hogares).35526578Arguably the biggest ICT success story is the continuing spread of mobile cellular networks into rural areas. This has been drivenby liberalization of the telecommunication sector worldwide, with particular emphasis on developing competition in the mobilecellular market. In the developing world, the far greater reach of mobile cellular networks compared to fixed-line networkswould most likely not have been possible without competition.Indeed, traditional monopoly fixed-line networks inmost developing countries have far less population reachthan mobile networks, even though they have been in operationfor much longer. Likewise, although a number ofcountries have created universal service funds to stimulateinvestment of mainly fixed lines in rural areas, for themost part they have been far less successful in expandingaccess than mobile cellular companies.Although there are numerous examples of this mobilerevolution in rural areas, two in particular serve to illustratethe impact of mobile communications on rural universalservice. Paraguay is a landlocked South Americannation with 6.2 million inhabitants, 41 per cent of whomlive in rural areas. It launched its first mobile networkin 1992, with a second following in 1998 and a third in1999. By the turn of the millennium, Paraguay had moremobile subscriptions than fixed lines. A fourth operatorentered in 2001, making Paraguay one of the most competitivemobile markets in Latin America. This high levelof competition has led to widespread infrastructure investmentin mobile networks, boosting population coverage.By the end of 2008, a mobile signal was availablein practically all inhabited areas of the country.The manner in which mobile has penetrated into rural households is astounding given that a third of the country’s populationlives below the poverty line, with many in small towns and villages. By 2008, over three quarters of rural households had amobile telephone compared to 15 per cent in 2001 (Chart 1 Box 1.1). Only five per cent of rural households have a fixed line.Wireless is moving beyond voice in Paraguay, with the operators having launched 3G broadband mobile service. One of themobile operators has launched a wireless WiMAX network and has the largest market share in the broadband market.Another example is Jordan, a Middle Eastern country with 5.7 million inhabitants. In 2002, only two in five rural householdshad a mobile phone. By 2007, this ratio had risen to more than four in five. Like Paraguay, Jordan is characterized by a highlycompetitive market with four mobile operators.Source: ITU.Percentage of Paraguayan ruralhouseholds with a mobile telephone2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008several (mainly high-income) countries, only very few households have only a fixed or a mobile phone. In Japan,for example, only five and six per cent of rural households have only a fixed or only a mobile phone, respectively,whereas overall Japanese households have over 90 per cent household penetration for both phones. Mauritius alsohas relatively few households (11 per cent with fixed only and 20 per cent with mobile only) that have only onetelephone. Although this might be surprising since Mauritius is a developing country, it has a relatively high GNI percapita level, particularly compared to other African nations.Another indicator proposed to monitor Target 1 is the proportion of rural households with Internet access. What isstriking about the data for this indicator is the complete lack of Internet access in rural homes in many of the developingcountries, including for example Niger, Nicaragua, Mongolia and Colombia (Chart 1.4). In other countries,including Bhutan, Armenia, Egypt, Chile and Thailand, home Internet access in rural areas remained below five percent by the year 2007-08. While these data are somewhat outdated, given that the Internet continues to spreadrapidly, including to rural areas, they suggest that Internet connectivity in rural areas remains very limited. Althoughthe reasons why so few rural households have Internet access are not known, these findings suggest that public accessin rural areas is very important in these countries. The proportion of rural households with Internet access athome exceeds the 50 per cent mark only in developed and high-income economies, including New Zealand, Israeland Japan. The Republic of Korea displayed the highest penetration rate, at 90 per cent. Two countries, Israel and16

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsChart 1.3: Proportion of rural households with only a fixed or only a mobile telephone, 2007-0810080%% of rural households with fixed telephone only% of rural households with mobile telephone only6040200CanadaJapanKyrgyzstanBosnia and Herz.MauritiusGuyana*Costa RicaEgyptCameroonNicaragua*TurkeyArmeniaGuatemala*Chile*El SalvadorColombiaParaguayNote: * Data refer to 2006.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Mauritius, stand out for actually having relatively more rural than urban households with Internet access. Mauritius isa very rural country, with 94 per cent of the population living in rural areas. 21 In Israel, on the other hand, only sevenper cent of the population live in rural areas, yet household Internet access stood at 69 per cent, compared to 59 percent in urban areas.A comparison of urban versus rural households shows that, in developing countries, home Internet access levelsremain much higher in urban areas. In Mongolia, 4.9 per cent of urban households have Internet access, comparedto only 0.1 per cent of rural households. In Colombia, the difference is 16.4 per cent of urban households as against0.4 per cent in rural areas. The rural digital divide is much less pronounced in developed countries, as highlighted byJapan, Canada and New Zealand (Chart 1.4).Fewer countries collect Internet household data broken down by type of access, but existing data suggest that broadbandaccess in rural households remains very limited in developing countries and by 2007-08 did not exceed tenper cent in any developing country for which data are available (Chart 1.5). At the same time, there are importantdifferences between the developed and high-income economies, with penetration levels ranging from a relativelylow 22 per cent in New Zealand to 71 per cent in the Republic of Korea. More and more developed and developingcountries, including the United States, Europe and Malaysia (Box 1.2), are recognizing the importance of high-speedInternet access and have modified (or are in the process of modifying) universal service and access frameworks toinclude the provision of broadband services in rural areas.Chart 1.5 also compares the difference between home broadband access in urban versus rural areas and shows thatthere are important variations in penetration rates. In Chile and in Thailand, for example, the penetration rate isaround nine times as high for urban as for rural areas and in Egypt urban broadband penetration in households stoodat twelve per cent compared to only two per cent in rural areas. Differences remain relatively high, even in devel-17

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsoped countries, such as Canada and Japan. In New Zealand, household broadband penetration in urban areas in 2008stood at 35 per cent, compared to 22 per cent in rural areas. These data confirm the need to address the urban-ruralbroadband divide in both developed and developing countries.Indeed, extending broadband access in rural areas remains a policy focus even in developed nations, where low populationdensity, landscape topography and vast geographic areas can often pose an ongoing challenge. 22 The UnitedStates, for example, recently allocated billions of dollars for expanding rural broadband as part of the economicstimulus Recovery Act 23 , and one of the conclusions of the US National Broadband Plan reads as follows: “Broadband,… is a modern necessity of life, not a luxury. It ought to be found in every village, in every home and on every farm inBox 1.2: More broadband, please: Malaysia adapts universal service regulationMalaysia’s universal service framework requires the country’s ICT regulator, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission(MCMC/SKMM), to designate areas of the country which are to benefit from government assistance for developing infrastructurethrough the universal service fund. MCMC/SKMM has designated areas where telephone penetration is 20 per centbelow the national average, and other localities where it finds that services are not widely available to the community. Its mostrecent analysis identified 86 localities as deficient in access compared to other regions of the country. 25 The universal service regulationshave been modified to incorporate broadband, with the aim of reaching a household broadband access penetration of 50per cent by 2010. By the end of 2008, these initiatives had resulted in the establishment of 85 community broadband centres and105 community broadband libraries. In addition, 42 rural Internet centres have been established through another programme.Mobile cellular coverage has also been included in universal service, whereby operators are given assistance for the roll-out ofnetworks to rural areas. This will raise mobile population coverage from 92 per cent to 97 per cent by the end of 2010. 26Chart 1.4: Proportion of rural and urban households with Internet access, 2007-08100%80RuralUrban6040200NigerNicaragua*Bhutan*Guatemala*MongoliaGuyana*ArmeniaEl SalvadorDominican Rep.HondurasEcuadorEgyptMauritiusColombiaThailandBosnia and Herz.Maldives*Costa RicaChile*OmanTurkeyAzerbaijanIsraelNew Zealand*CanadaJapanKorea (Rep.)Note: * Data refer to 2006.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.18

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsChart 1.5: Proportion of rural and urban households with broadband** Internet access, 2007-08Korea (Rep.)Canada*JapanNew ZealandTurkeyChile*EgyptThailand*Costa RicaEcuadorMauritiusAzerbaijan2211010556101291017222735365564687182UrbanRural0 20 40 60 80 100%Note: * Data refer to 2006. ** Broadband refers to both wireless and fixed (wired) broadband access.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.every part of the United States” [FCC, 2010]. Similar proposals exist in Europe, and the European Commission recentlyannounced plans to update the current telecom universal services law from 2002, which ensures access to fixed telephoneand Internet services for all European Union citizens, regardless of their location. A revised law would expandthese services to include broadband access. 24The relatively low proportion of rural households in developing countries that have Internet access and the evenlower broadband penetration rates highlight, first, the importance of connecting more homes and, second, the needto provide public Internet access — preferably high-speed — in rural areas. While the main reasons why people donot have Internet access at home are not clearly known, it is likely that people cannot afford the home Internet connection,or the computer, which continues to be the most popular access device. Since people in rural areas tendto live on relatively lower incomes, the high price of Internet services, and particularly broadband, is obviously abarrier to higher penetration levels. 27 Depending on national circumstances, including geographic and demographicconditions, many rural areas also lack the basic infrastructure. The recent growth of mobile broadband is expectedto have a major impact on broadband connectivity, particularly in rural and previously underserved areas. To trackthe uptake of mobile broadband it is therefore suggested that countries collect data on households with broadbandaccess, both mobile and fixed.There are insufficient data to provide a comprehensive picture of the current spread of community access centresin localities or villages. According to data received by ITU from 60 respondents to a questionnaire in 2004, some 37per cent of localities had a community access point. In rural localities, however, where public access is arguably mostneeded, the figure dropped to under five per cent. ITU also carried out research on the number of localities with Internet.The data were compiled in 2008 from a number of sources, such as government records, projects for installingcommunity Internet access and the number of points-of-presence of large ISPs, using data from between 2000 and19

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 1.6: Proportion of localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs), 2007-08100%806040200Korea (Rep.)MalawiTongaTuvaluCongoCosta RicaS. Tomé & PrincipeParaguayBotswanaMyanmarNamibiaBhutanMaliUgandaEgyptBulgariaFrench PolynesiaGuinea-BissauKyrgyzstanGabonSt. VincentDominican Rep.MaldivesSpainColombiaHong Kong, ChinaKazakhstanLuxembourgMaltaMonacoSan MarinoSingaporeSource: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.2006. Except for Europe and the CIS, country averages for Internet access were very low. In the Americas, aroundone in six communities had Internet access, compared to one in ten in the Asia and the Pacific region. Elsewhere, thecountry average was below five per cent. Africa stood out with very low levels of access. For the developing world asa whole, ITU estimated that eight per cent of localities had Internet access. Considering that this covered any typeof Internet access, the figure for localities with broadband access is lower. 28 The data used to make these estimateswere from between 2000 and 2006, and it is not possible to track more recent changes. Secondly, most developedcountries and some developing countries are more focused on pushing Internet access into the home (universalservice) rather than to localities (universal access). Thirdly, the growing use of mobile cellular networks to access theInternet has an impact on the analysis: as already discussed, a mobile signal can span multiple localities and coverageis typically expressed in terms of population or land area covered rather than localities.Some countries do track data on the proportion of localities with PIACs, and while these more recent (2007-2008)data do not show the number of localities by population size or broken down by urban/rural area, they provide someindication of the availability of public Internet access services nationwide (Chart 1.6). There are large differences interms of the proportion of localities with PIACs. Most developed or high-income economies have public access in alllocalities. In a number of countries, including Tonga, the Republic of the Congo and Costa Rica, public Internet accessis not widely available, with five per cent of localities, or less, covered. Public access is particularly important incountries and regions with low household penetration rates, since for some people it may be the only way to accessthe Internet.A number of governments of developing countries, including Colombia (Box 1.3), have created programmes aimedat providing Internet access through community centres in rural areas. Specific government projects, but also grassrootsinitiatives, typically supported by non-governmental organizations and the academic sector, have had a majorimpact on Internet access in some countries. There are also projects to leverage growing mobile coverage in order toprovide Internet access using cellular networks.20

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsBox 1.3: Connect and inform every ColombianColombia’s Compartel programme, 29 financed from telecommunication operator contributions to the universal fund, has anumber of different projects for expanding access to ICTs and fulfilling the government’s vision that every Colombian “is to beconnected and informed.” 30 The programme has expanded from its initial focus on rural telephony to the provision of Internetin community centres (“telecentres”) and broadband connectivity in public institutions such as schools, municipal offices andlibraries. The community telecentres also provide training and other services and are expected to receive a high degree ofcommunity input and support. There were 1 490 telecentres by mid-2008 serving some five million people, with plans forincreasing the number to 10 000 by 2010. 31 Community access is also extended through 140 educational institutions thatprovide after-school Internet access to the general public and 221 public libraries with broadband Internet.The importance of public access is also highlighted by available data on the percentage of rural Internet users ofcommunity and commercial Internet access facilities (Chart 1.7). In most of the developing countries in the Americaswhich track this indicator, including in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Ecuador, 40 per cent or moreof rural Internet users access the Internet at commercial or public Internet access facilities. Peru’s cabinas públicas(public booths) have made a major contribution to expanding Internet access, especially to rural areas (Box 1.4). Inthe Ukraine, about one third of the rural Internet users go to public Internet access facilities.Unfortunately, too few governments track this indicator and no official data are available from Africa. However, between2007 and 2008, Research ICT Africa (RIA) carried out household surveys across 17 African countries, includingChart 1.7: Proportion of rural Internet users who use the Internet at public access facilities, 2007-08100%% of rural Internet users who used a community Internet access facility80% of rural Internet users who used a commercial Internet access facility6040200OmanThailandJapanEgyptMauritiusKorea (Rep.)AzerbaijanPalestineTurkeyEcuadorParaguayCosta RicaNicaraguaEl SalvadorChileUkraineNote: Community Internet access facilities refer to public libraries, publicly provided Internet kiosks, non-commercial telecentres,digital community centres, post offices, other government agencies; access is typically free and is available to the generalpublic.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.21

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 1.4: Public Internet access in PeruChart 1 Box 1.4: Percentage of households with at leastone member who used a cabina pública, Peru504030201025 273439PeruRural areas43 44 43131619The Red Cientifica Peruana (Peruvian Scientific Network) pioneered a public Internet access model that has been extremelysuccessful. RCP was formed in 1991 as a non-profit organization to promote Internet access in Peru. It was one of the country’sfirst ISPs, starting out by mainly providing access to the education sector and NGOs. Its founder, Jose Soriano, had theidea of creating a network of public Internet access facilities modelled on the country’s public telephone booths. These Internetpoints thus became known as cabinas públicas (“publicbooths”). They developed rapidly, with RCP creating afranchise model, assisting with financing and providingtraining. 33 One measure of the success of this venture isthat today cabina pública is the term used in Peru to referto any public Internet facility, even though most havesince developed outside the auspices of RCP. This criticalmass of public Internet facilities has fed on itself, not onlycreating a “public booth” culture but also resulting in intensecompetition, leading to low costs (prices are USD0.15 - 0.30 per hour 34 ) with beneficial results for users andgrowth of the Internet in Peru.94 64The success of the public booths is reflected in Internet0usage statistics. In 2008, some 20.4 per cent of the populationused public booths to access the Internet, and they2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008were the most frequent place of access. 35 The expansionof public booths beyond urban areas is also visible. InSource: Adapted from INEI.19 per cent of rural households there was at least onemember who used a public booth in 2008, up from justfour per cent in 2002 (Chart 1 Box 1.4). It is worth notingthat urban access from Internet cafés has been declining in the last few years, as more homes get their own Internet access.However, in rural areas it has continued to climb and the gap with the national average has shrunk between 2002 and 2008.to collect data on the “points of access” used by Internet users. The survey clearly showed that the large majorityof Africans access the Internet at cybercafés or Internet cafés. In Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire,85 per cent or more of Internet users used such facilities. 32Regardless of data constraints, there are developments that should increase the availability of Internet access in ruralareas over the coming years. One barrier to greater Internet broadband usage in rural areas has been a lack of accessto backhaul high-speed transmission networks. A number of countries are developing national backbones to connectto undersea fibre-optic cables. As a consequence, fibre-optic is reaching beyond metropolitan areas and passing underservedparts of countries, which can then be connected to the fibre to obtain broadband capacity. One example is EastAfrica (Box 1.5), where countries are extending backhaul transmission networks, bringing broadband connectivity tomore rural areas. 36Another development that is expected to increase rural connectivity and bring ICTs to villages is the spread of wirelessbroadband access. Wireless technology is cheaper and faster to implement than fixed broadband. A number ofdeveloping nations are leveraging existing mobile networks to introduce broadband 3G Internet access. ITU reportedthat mobile broadband subscriptions overtook fixed broadband subscriptions in 2008, highlighting the huge potentialfor the mobile Internet. 40 The challenge will be to extend these benefits into rural areas, including through innovativeprojects as the Grameenphone’s community information centres (Box 1.6).22

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsfor rural areas since it requires less investment than installing fixed broadband connections. Mobile broadband coverage,or the percentage of the population within reach of a 3G mobile cellular signal, will therefore be an importantindicator to monitor.The importance of mobile communication networks is also highlighted by data on the proportion of households witha fixed and/or mobile telephone. Data show that mobile telephony is playing a key role in expanding communicationaccess to rural areas. Rural households in developing countries rely more on mobile than on fixed telephony, andwhile fixed telephone penetration in rural households often remains below five per cent, mobile penetration ratesare much higher, reaching 50 per cent or more in a number of developing countries that collect this information.Data on the availability of Internet access in rural households, on the other hand, paint a somewhat different picture.In many developing countries, there is still some way to go before rural households enjoy conventional access to theInternet. Whereas in many developed countries rural connectivity is on a par with urban connectivity, elsewhereInternet access in rural households is not available at all, and a number of low-income developing countries actuallyhave zero per cent of rural households with Internet access. A lack of electricity and the high price of computers andInternet access are major barriers.Only very few developing countries collect data on the proportion of rural households with broadband Internet access,but figures suggest that in most cases penetration levels remain extremely low in the majority of developingcountries, and particularly in low-income economies. Measuring rural household access to the Internet and broadbandis important not only in order to understand how well connected rural households are but also to enable policymakersto make informed policy decisions. Especially where rural household Internet access is very low, governmentsneed to focus on establishing community access points, which ideally should have broadband connectivity.A growing number of countries are indeed moving ahead with the installation of public Internet facilities in ruralareas, often financed through universal access contributions or licence conditions. Only a very small number of countriescollect data on the availability of community access points, however, and even fewer provide a breakdown bypopulation size or by rural and urban areas. This makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about progress inrural connectivity outside the home. By including a question on the location of individual use of the Internet as anitem in household surveys, a number of countries are able to gauge the importance of public Internet access fromthe response category “community/commercial Internet access facilities.” While there are still too few countries thattrack this indicator through official household surveys, existing data suggest that in many developing countries publicInternet access facilities remain one of the most important access locations for people in rural areas. This findinghighlights the need for governments to ensure that public access is provided throughout rural areas.One difficulty in making recommendations for how countries can achieve Target 1 is the interrelationship betweencommunity access and home access. Over time, it is expected that, as incomes rise and electricity becomes available,households will opt for the convenience of using ICT services at home. Therefore, as household access increases,community access is expected to fall. Policy-makers need to keep this linkage in mind and policies to promote communityaccess in rural areas need to move in tandem with facilitating home ICT access. As incomes rise, the emphasisshould shift towards facilitating rural household access.One development with widespread implications is the spread of mobile phone use and the deployment of 3G networksin rural areas. This has far-reaching repercussions for the future, given that, in addition to voice communications,mobile phone networks can also provide text messaging and Internet access.Based on these findings, there are a number of strategies that countries can pursue to achieve greater mobile accessand use in rural areas and to ensure that Internet and broadband access becomes more widely available:• Introduce as much competition in the mobile sector as possible. The more operators the better, since they willcompete to gain incremental customers and hence extend coverage into rural areas. In Thailand, where thereis intense competition in the cities with up to five operators, mobile companies have been expanding into ruralareas to gain new subscribers. 46• Modify universal service policies to incorporate mobile deployment. Although mobile operators typically contributeto universal service funds, they generally receive little of the funding for mobile network expansion,even though it is cheaper to deploy wireless networks than fixed lines in rural areas. Furthermore, most of24

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access pointsthese funds have yet to be spent and sit unused. According to the GSM Association, if these unspent funds plusthe funds to be collected by the end of the decade were spent on extending mobile networks, then nearly thewhole world would have mobile coverage within four years. 47• Set targets in licences for the percentage of the population to be covered by a mobile cellular network. Somecountries have not exploited the regulatory tool of imposing licence conditions on operators so as to expandcoverage. This can be rectified when licences come up for renewal or when additional or new spectrum isawarded. Some countries have also been lax in enforcing coverage requirements, even though enforcementcosts are far less than what it would cost to extend access through universal service funding schemes.• Encourage local partnerships to develop mobile access and applications. The Bangladesh village phone modelshows how the combination of microfinance banking and mobile operators can be leveraged to provide accessto mobile communications in rural areas. This model can be widely replicated to support the link betweencoverage and access. The development of rurally relevant mobile applications such as information about commodityprices or transport schedules delivered via text messaging can help to drive demand.• Build out electricity. A lack of electricity is arguably the biggest barrier to extending mobile coverage and increasingaccess to other ICTs, including the Internet. The Bangladesh village phone programmme is currentlylimited to villages with electricity. Furthermore, electricity shortages force many mobile operators to use expensivediesel generators, which drives up costs, making service less affordable for generally lower-incomerural dwellers. At the same time, a lack of electricity makes it difficult to recharge phones. Though car batteriesand other alternatives can be used for this purpose, they tend to be more expensive than grid electricity.• Foster wireless broadband access. Many non-voice applications are available over mobile networks and can bedelivered to mobile handsets without the need for a computer. Broadband wireless networks are also growingin developing countries — both fixed (WiMax) and 3G mobile. These developments can help boost Internetand broadband access in rural areas. Policy-makers should facilitate the development of wireless broadbandand consider incentives for rural deployment. Indicators to measure and monitor supply (such as rural wirelessbroadband coverage as a percentage of the rural population) and demand (such as subscribers in rural areas orsurveys on wireless broadband usage in rural areas) should be compiled to track this important development.• In order to make services more affordable and increase the spread of the Internet and broadband, governmentsneed to encourage greater market liberalization in the Internet market, and ensure particularly facilities-basedcompetition. While many countries have encouraged the entry of Internet cafés or ISPs, true competition isconstrained due to high prices for essential backbone infrastructure such as international gateways and leasedlines. There are many rural households that would opt for Internet connectivity but cannot because of a lack ofoptions and high prices.• In countries where universal Internet service is not feasible, governments need to promote the installation ofpublic Internet facilities in rural areas. These can be financed through universal access contributions or licenceconditions. Another approach is to use funding from e-government programmes to install public facilities forcitizens to access information. This is essential to avoid an e-government digital divide whereby the rural publicare unable to use government-to-consumer applications. Given the right market conditions, cooperativemodels together with the private sector can help deliver community access. There are a number of examples,including the Bangladesh community information centres and the Peruvian cabinas publicas described in thischapter. Lessons may also be learnt from ITU’s Connect a School, Connect a Community initiative 48 , a public-privatepartnership effort to promote broadband school connectivity to serve both students and the community.• Finally, policy-makers need to achieve the right mix between universal access and universal service strategies.Getting infrastructure to rural areas is just the first step. The population then needs to have access to services.While initially this might be through the public telephone service (whether mobile or fixed), eventually householdswill want to have their own access. Policy-makers must find the right balance between public access andfacilitating home access.25

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsNotes1Substantial inputs to this chapter have been provided by Michael Minges.2Villages have been defined as “a group of houses and other buildings, such as a church, a school and some shops, which is smaller than atown, usually in the countryside.” See Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/.3See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c2.4See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c3.5See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c4.6See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c9.7This section draws substantially on [ITU, 2009].8The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is a multistakeholder partnership launched in 2004. To achieve its main objective —namely, to increase the availability and quality of internationally comparable ICT data — it has developed a core list of ICT indicators. Formore information on the Partnership and its core list of indicators, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/partnership/index.html.9Markandey Rai. “Operational Definitions of Urban, Rural and Urban Agglomeration for Monitoring Human Settlements.”http://www.scorus2006.ue.wroc.pl/modules/Downloads/presentations/Markandey_Rai.pdf.10The European Union follows the OECD definition, while noting that: “The OECD definition is based on the share of population living inrural communes (i.e. with less than 150 inhabitants per km 2 ). This is the only internationally recognised definition of rural areas. However,in some cases, it does not fully take into account the population living in more densely populated rural areas, particularly in peri-urbanzones...” See: 2006/144/EC: Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programmingperiod 2007 to 2013) available at:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006D0144:EN:NOT.11Villages can also be uninhabited or “non-revenue generating.” This is the case in India, where there are ongoing revisions to the figurereported in the 2001 census. See: [TRAI, 2008].12In 2008, ITU published a report on the availability of ICTs in villages and rural areas [ITU, 2008). This report included estimates on thenumber and proportion of villages with a fixed telephone line. In view of the data constraints for this indicator, various proxies were usedto make estimates about the number of localities with a fixed telephone line, such as the number of post offices (on the assumption thatthey would have telephone service) or the number of telephone exchanges (on the assumption there is one per locality).13Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, 2010.14There are several Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) service operators providing worldwide coverage. Oneapplication they are used for is providing service in rural and remote areas, often where there is no terrestrial mobile cellular signal. InMauritania, GMPCS licences were awarded at no cost but the service providers are obligated to provide payphone service in all localitieswith more than 1 000 inhabitants. See: M. Mohamed Salem OULD LEKHAL. “Comment favoriser l’accès aux services de communicationsélectroniques pour le plus grand nombre?,” 5th annual meeting of FRATEL, Montreux, Switzerland,7 - 9 November, 2007. http://www.fratel.org/espace_public/IMG/presentation_ARM_.pdf.15Many regulators or operators provide national mobile population coverage. Assuming that urban areas are covered first, rural coveragecan be estimated by subtracting the urban population from the total population covered by a mobile signal. The formula is:Proportion of rural population covered by a mobile cellular signal =(Proportion of total population covered by a mobile cellular signal x Total population) ‐ Urban populationRural population16The Partnership encourages countries to include “...geographic ... classificatory variables if they are able to, as the output can providevery useful policy information.” See: ITU, Manual for measuring ICT access and use by households and individuals. [Geneva: ITU, 2009] athttp://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/hhmanual/2009/index.html.17Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development, 2010.18Telegeography, China improves rural coverage, January 2010, see:http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=31529&email=html.19The e-Cambodia Development Plan foresees connecting all districts, communes and eventually villages with ICTs, including telephony,Internet, videoconferencing, radio and video. See, for example, slide 4 of the presentation Regional Workshop on Community e-Centre forRural development by Mr Noy Shoung, Deputy Secretary General, National ICT Development Authority , Cambodia, at the the UN ESCAPRegional Workshop on Community e-Centres for Rural Development , 29-30 October 2009, New Delhi , India, at:http://www.unescap.org/idd/events/2009_Delhi_WS/index.asp, as well as:http://ifap-is-observatory.ittk.hu/node/7.20See, for example Telecompaper: Orange France, SFR warned over 3G network coverage, December 2009, at:http://www.telecompaper.com/news/article.aspx?cid=710603 and also the Austrian operator Optus’ online information on its 3G populationcoverage, including a coverage map, at: http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/aboutoptus/menuitem.26a56e3a0149a03327b868108c8ac7a0/?vgnextoid=0aa730ece1197010VgnVCM10000029867c0aRCRD.21For a definition of ‘rural areas’ in Mauritius, see the Mauritius Central Statistical Office, at: http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/cso.22See: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/2663/Widening_broadband_s_reach.html.26

Target 1: Connect villages with ICTs and establish community access points23See: http://wireless.fcc.gov/outreach/index.htm?job=recovery.24Total Telecom, EU to revise broadband law to guarantee access to all, 02 March, 2010, at:http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?C=0&ID=453595.25See: http://www.skmm.gov.my/link_file/what_we_do/usp/USP%20Notification2003.pdf.26See: http://www.skmm.gov.my/link_file/what_we_do/usp/pdf/keynote2.pdf.27The ITU’s Measuring the Information Society Report 2010 highlighted the relatively high price for basic broadband access in many developingcountries [ITU, 2010].28See: [ITU, 2008], andhttp://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/newslog/Report+Measuring+ICT+Availability+In+Villages+And+Rural+Areas+Available+Now.aspx.29See: http://www.compartel.gov.co/.30Colombia, Ministry for Information and Communications Technologies, “The Colombian ICT sector and its perspectives: Bridging thedigital divide while fostering private investment.” Presented on 5 October, 2009. Geneva, Switzerland.31Colombia, Ministry of Communications: “Programa Compartel,” July 2008.32Respondents had the possibility to choose several access points. See page 28 of [Gillwald, Alison and Stork, Christoph, 2008].33Elkin, Noah, “eMarketer: RCP bridges the digital divide in Latin America.” EIU ebusiness forum, 8 March, 2001.http://globaltechforum.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=rich_story&doc_id=2669&categoryid=&channelid=&search=bridges.34[Curioso, et al., 2007].35See: http://www.inei.gob.pe/web/BoletinFlotante.asp?file=8175.pdf.36The World Bank is supporting a number of these initiatives through the Africa Regional Communications Infrastructure Programme, see:http://go.worldbank.org/1UNCU3TTM0.37See: https://communicationsdirectnews.com/do.php/120/37175.38See: http://www.gsmworld.com/newsroom/press-releases/2010/4641.htm.39See: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2009/prod_080409.html.40See: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/Telecom09_flyer.pdf.41See: http://www.telenor.com/en/resources/images/016-024_GrameenphoneCIC_tcm28-36855.pdf.42GSMA Development Association, Case study: Grameenphone community information centres, Bangladesh. (2008).http://www.gsmworld.com/documents/GrameenPhone_bangladesh_hires.pdf.43Although an ITU 3G mobile standard, actual speeds with initial EDGE implementation were less than broadband (

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesCurioso, W. H., M. M. Blas, B. Nodell, I. E. Alva, and A. E. Kurth (2007), “Opportunities for Providing Web-BasedInterventions to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Infections in Peru,” PLoS Med, February 2007.Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (2010), Connecting America. The National Broadband Plan.GSM Association (2006), Universal access: How mobile can bring communications to all.ITU (2010), Measuring the Information Society 2010, Geneva, 2010.ITU (2009), Manual for measuring ICT access and use by households and individuals, Geneva, 2009.ITU (2008), Measuring information and communication technology availability in villages and rural areas, Geneva,2008.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010), Core ICT indicators, Geneva, 2010.Gillwald, A. and C. Stork, (2008), Research ICT Africa (RIA), Towards evidence-based ICT policy and regulation. ICTaccess and use in Africa, Volume 1, 2008 — Policy Paper two.Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) (2008), Indian telecom services performance indicators October– December2007, April 2008.28

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsTarget 2: Connect universities, colleges,secondary schools and primary schoolswith ICTs 1IntroductionGovernments are increasingly recognizing the multiple benefits of providing access to information and communicationtechnology (ICT) infrastructure within education systems. Connectivity provides a platform for students to obtaininformation technology and communication skills, and can reduce costs associated with printing and the distributionof books. Outside school hours, connected schools can also be used to provide connectivity for the community, includingmarginalized groups, such as the elderly, minorities, the unemployed and people with disabilities. 2The benefits of integrating ICTs in education can have a multiplier effect throughout the education system by:• improving teaching and learning processes and allowing students to acquire new sets of skills required for theinformation society (Box 2.1);• providing learners with access to Internet resources and computers as pedagogical tools;• supporting teacher training through ICT-enabled distance-education programmes;• improving the administration of educational institutions in order to enhance the quality and efficiency of servicedelivery.Target 2 is closely related to WSIS Action Line C2 (Information and communication infrastructure):“In the context of national e-strategies, provide and improve ICT connectivity for all schools, universities, health institutions,libraries, post offices, community centres, museums and other institutions accessible to the public, in line withthe indicative targets.” 3It is also significant in the context of Action Line C7, in respect of e-learning, and Action Line C4 (Capacity building),which enumerates a number of policies such as integrating ICTs in education and promoting e-literacy skills for all:29

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 2.1: The benefits of connecting educational institutions for learners and teachersIn order to prepare students for the changing needs of labour markets and knowledge-based societies, education systems mustadapt their curricula to include ICT-assisted instruction. An ICT skill that is essential for participating in knowledge-based societiesis information literacy, which can be used in conjunction with other problem-solving and communication skills. 5 In using the wealthof electronic resources available for pedagogical purposes via the latest Internet-based tools and digital technologies, learners canquickly expand their information literacy skills set. In essence, achieving full connectivity as sought by WSIS Target 2 is a preconditionfor attaining Target 7: “To adapt all primary and secondary school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society, takinginto account national circumstances” .At the same time, ICTs can act as a catalyst for alleviating bottlenecks in education systems, particularly teacher shortages. Accordingto forecasts, a global total of 10.3 million teachers have to be recruited between 2007 and 2015 to meet the goal of universalprimary education [UNESCO-UIS, 2009a], but the lack of trained teachers is a key challenge in achieving this goal. Sub-Saharan Africahas by far the greatest need forChart 1 Box 2.1: Increases in teacher stocks needed by 2015additional teachers, as shown byChart 1 Box 2.1. Three quarters ofSub-Saharan Africa1 159countries (27 out of 45) in the regionface a significant teacher gap,estimated at 1.2 million teachers.Source: UIS.Since for many countries theconventional method of coursedelivery is not a viable option, ICTenableddistance-education programmescan be used to reach agreater number of primary-schoolage pupil populations, by complementingand enhancing existingteaching practices as well asproviding additional content anddelivery options, particularly in remoteor rural areas where teachersare scarce. They may also beused for teacher training. Settingup relevant curricula at a distancebased on an ICT-enabled environmenthas the advantage of flexibility,while achieving economies ofscale in the dissemination of teacher-training content. Pedagogical content can thus be disseminated to potential populations at adeclining unit cost, while also achieving a potential multiplier effect across the target populations.Teacher training can take place through ICT-enabled distance-education programmes, which exploit ICTs to deliver all or a significantproportion of the teaching to learners who are removed in space and time. Distance education can take various forms,such as Internet-based distance learning, whereby content can be transmitted either synchronously or asynchronously. Nationalcircumstances will dictate the most effective technological solutions for the purpose of pedagogical training and course delivery.Self-learning using CD or DVD-ROM, in which the learner interacts with content on a computer or other integrated device, is anotherpractical tool for delivering training. Broadcast-based education, in which content is delivered via radio or television, is very effectivein delivering content to a mass of potential teachers.To reap the full benefits and potential that Internet-based distance-education programmes have to offer, greater investment isrequired in infrastructure that can support broadband Internet services. As more web-based curriculum materials are developedusing high-bandwidth applications, consumers of distance-education programmes in these new formats require access to the supportinginfrastructure. Since many of the web-based applications make use of interactive media and streaming content in the deliveryof distance-education programmes, users with broadband Internet access can take full advantage of these applications. Oneof the dilemmas that persist is that investment in such technologies can only occur when there is a minimum customer base thatwill consume the broadband Internet services. Given the high fixed costs associated with supporting such services, a sustainablecustomer base is essential for guaranteeing the viability of a market in the long run. The systematic deployment of any web-baseddistance education programmes or government policy to support such initiatives must therefore take this into consideration indelivering the curriculum.Source: UIS.Arab StatesSouth and West AsiaNorth America and WesternEuropeEast Asia and the PacificLatin America and theCaribbeanCentral AsiaCentral and Eastern Europe14134125902822400 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200 1 400Additional primary teachers needed (in thousands)30

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs“Everyone should have the necessary skills to benefit fully from the information society. Therefore capacity buildingand ICT literacy are essential. ICTs can contribute to achieving universal education worldwide, through delivery ofeducation and training of teachers, and offering improved conditions for lifelong learning, encompassing people thatare outside the formal education process, and improving professional skills.” 4Measuring Target 2 — Proposed indicatorsIn order to monitor ICT in education from an international perspective, it is necessary to establish a consensus onthe conceptual framework. Moreover, the approach must emphasize that educational institutions (or schools) arethe main units of data collection, with aggregation at the country level. This method of data collection guaranteesinternational comparability for the effective monitoring of ICT infrastructure in education systems.The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is leading a process for the development and pilot testing of cross-nationallycomparable core indicators of ICT for education (ICT4E), under the auspices of the Partnership on Measuring ICT forDevelopment. The Partnership is mandated to establish international standards, indicators and benchmarks for statisticalmonitoring of the WSIS global policy goals.A set of core ICT in education indicators that measure aspects of e-readiness and access to ICT in education systemswere submitted by the Partnership to the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) at its 40th session in February2009 [Partnership, 2010]. As a response to the need to expand the initial core list, UIS has established the internationalWorking Group for ICT Statistics in Education (WISE). The purpose of the working group is to bring togetherstatisticians (national focal points) from ministries of education (or national statistical offices) from 25 countriesaround the world to pilot the international Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education. The four indicators suggestedto monitor Target 2 in the following sections are the result of this initiative [UNESCO-UIS, 2009b].Apart from the efforts of UIS and the Partnership to monitor ICT in education at an international level, there have beenno other global initiatives to identify indicators or to provide data on school connectivity. 6 Periodic surveys on school connectivityhave been carried out in Europe, usually under a project of the European Commission, 7 and a number of studiesexist for other regions, including Latin America and the Caribbean. Mostly, however, data on ICT in education are not comparableacross countries and are based on different sets of indicators and definitions. Some countries have collected ICTin education data through statistical reports or one-time studies, especially to address policy needs. Often these data areavailable only for one country, for one year, and/or are limited to a specific school level. While the results of the UIS surveypresented in this chapter provide important insights into the status of school connectivity, the survey is limited to 25 countries,including several developed countries. Not all data sets are available for all 25 countries. The UIS survey results werecomplemented through data received from ITU’s Survey on the WSIS Targets, as well as some official data from regional ornational sources. Despite the fact that a number of countries and regions, including Africa, have set specific targets on ICTin education (Box 2.2), relatively few countries seem to be actually able to track them.Although Target 2 does not specifically say how many educational institutions should be connected, it could be interpretedas meaning “all” universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools. Nor does it specifically stateprecisely which ICTs it refers to. Clearly, however, ICT-assisted instruction must encompass technologies that areconsistent with national circumstances and realities. In this sense, technologies and supporting infrastructure mayinclude older or more conventional ICT tools such as radio and television broadcasts (live and off-air) as well as thelatest digital technologies such as broadband Internet and computer software.The type of indicators selected to measure Target 2 will depend to some extent on a country’s development statusand ICT-readiness. Countries that are in the early stages of introducing ICTs have different information needs fromcountries that have longer experience with the technology. For instance, when introducing computers or Internetassistedinstruction in education, it is important that teachers and learners have access to hardware and software toacquire basic computer skills. Countries whose education systems have reached this level of ICT integration can becharacterized as being at the e-readiness stage (see Figure 2.1). As Target 2 aims to measure the overall presence ofICT infrastructure and connectivity, key e-readiness indicators must be identified for this purpose.Countries in the more advanced stages of ICT use in education have other priorities — such as the management ofpedagogical innovation, adaptive and inclusive curricula, organizational change, sustainable technical support, and31

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 2.2: Setting targets: Examples from the Americas, Africa and AustraliaWhile Target 2 does not specify the percentage of schools that should be connected to ICTs, some regions and countries haveset their own targets, usually in terms of Internet connectivity:• In Latin America and the Caribbean, eLAC 2010 established a target to connect 70 per cent of public educational institutionsby 2010, preferably via broadband, otherwise tripling the current number of public schools connected to theInternet. 8• The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) e-Schools Initiative was announced in 2003 at the Africa Summitof the World Economic Forum, for implementation until 2013. One of its goals was to equip “all African primary andsecondary schools with ICT apparatus such as computers, radios and television sets, phones and fax machines, communicationequipment, scanners, digital cameras, copiers, etc., and to connect them to the Internet.” 9• In 2009, Australia committed funding to provide 90 per cent of all schools with optical fibre progressively over the nexteight years and to achieve a 1:1 learner-to-computer ratio for secondary schools by 2011. 10 Schools connected willhave access to broadband speeds of up to 100 Mbit/s. These initiatives are among the many that recognize the positiveimpact that ICTs have on education.Source: ECLAC; E-Africa Commission; Australian DBCDE.Figure 2.1: Information needs at different levels of ICT penetration in educational systemsICT4E and economic productivityTracer studies on ICT-skilled students in labour marketInformation requirements for policy-makingAccess to and use of basic ICTinfrastructureICT and student achievementsICT for lifelong learningExpansion of ICT-related fields of studyNew ICT vocational skills developmentICT-enhanced content development andinnovative pedagogy managemente-intensitye-impactWebcasting, podcasting,Video/visio-Conferencing, etc.Internet-enabled learningDistance education, virtual/open universities, virtualhigh schools, virtual laboratories and onlinesimulations, digital libraries, etc.ICT trained teachers and ICT support staffe-readinessRadio and TV instruction, educational software, e -mail, etc.Time - Level of ICT integration in the education systemSource: UIS, adapted from [UNCTAD, 2007].32

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTscontinued staff development. Thus, the concerns of policy-makers and their information needs shift over time. Forsome, measuring the impact of the implementation of ICT in education means gathering information on access, useand learner outcomes. For others, in the early days of implementation, attention centres more on creating an ICTinfrastructure in order to provide schools with access to newer technologies, before moving on to focus on appropriateways to use ICT in order to achieve intended educational outcomes.The notion of e-readiness in an educational setting depends largely on the availability of ICT infrastructure. At higherlevels of education, particularly in the contexts of colleges and universities, tracking Internet connectivity is lessrelevant from the international monitoring perspective. In an advanced pedagogical setting, measuring the degreeof ICT intensity and use provides more meaningful information. For the purpose of international comparability andfor monitoring the availability of ICT infrastructure, the indicators discussed in this chapter will focus on connectingprimary and secondary schools with ICTs. Connecting learners early on will create the foundations required for theprogression into more advanced levels of education.The four indicators identified to monitor connectivity in primary and secondary schools are the following: 111. Proportion of schools with a radio used for educational purposes (for ISCED levels 1-3)2. Proportion of schools with a television used for educational purposes (for ISCED levels 1-3)3. Learners-to-computer ratio (for ISCED levels 1-3)4. Proportion of schools with Internet access (for ISCED levels 1-3), by type of access (narrowband, broadband)These indicators cover both “older” and “newer” ICTs. All of these indicators are part of the Partnership on MeasuringICT for Development’s core list of indicators and, at the international level, are under the responsibility of UIS.A detailed discussion of each indicator and an overview of available data will be presented in the following section.Status of Target 2Radios and TVRadio- and television-assisted instruction represents an effective solution for delivering educational content, particularlyin remote areas where investing in infrastructure to support telephony and Internet services may be costly.While there are numerous benefits to be gained from spreading Internet connectivity throughout education systems,many developing countries may see broadcast technologies as a viable alternative to these newer technologies. Liveradio broadcasts and off-air radio cassettes as well as television broadcasts and offline video-assisted technologiesare still considered valid and cost-effective modes of education delivery. In terms of delivering educational content,they could be just as effective as the more interactive computer/Internet-based virtual education or online distancelearning.A high value (or percentage) for indicators (1) and (2) implies that radio- and television-based technologies are awidespread mode of instruction within schools in the country concerned, while a low value indicates the contrary. Itshould be noted that these indicators only reflect the degree of radio and television availability in schools, and notthe actual intensity of use. By comparing them to the proportion of schools providing other ICT facilities as a deliverymode, one can assess the relative predominance of the different technologies used for pedagogical purposes withina country or across countries. Besides their use for international comparison, these indicators can also be calculatedand analysed by geographical region, urban/rural area and public/private institution in order to detect patterns andpotential discrepancies.For the purpose of measuring radio-assisted instruction, a radio is defined as being a stand-alone device (in workingcondition) capable of receiving broadcast radio signals, using popular frequencies (such as FM, AM, LW and SW).Radio-assisted instruction includes both radio broadcast education and interactive radio instruction. Radio broadcasteducation may be an audio lecture or lesson, with printed material for learners to follow it. Any teacher, not nec-33

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsessarily qualified in the subject matter, can use the radio programme as a primary instructional source. Broadcastprogrammes follow the traditional model of education and can cover every subject in many different languages,depending on the target audience.Interactive radio instruction turns a typically one-way technology into a tool for active learning inside and outside theclassroom. It requires that learners react to questions and exercises through verbal responses to radio-programmecontributors, group work and physical and intellectual activities while the programme is on air. For both teacher andlearner, the lesson becomes an immediate hands-on practical guide [UNESCO, 2009c].For the purpose of measuring television-assisted instruction, a television is defined as a stand-alone device (in workingcondition) capable of receiving broadcast television signals using popular access means (such as over-the-air,cable and satellite).Television-assisted instruction is similar to radio broadcast education, with the additional benefit of video. It helpsto bring abstract concepts to life through clips, animations, simulations, visual effects and dramatization. It can alsoconnect a classroom to the world, but shares the same rigid scheduling and lack of interactivity as radio broadcasteducation.Chart 2.1 shows that, in many countries (including Bahrain, Finland, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Sweden and Oman),television- and radio-assisted instruction is present throughout the entire education system, with 100 per cent ofprimary and secondary schools having this type of instruction. In other countries, such as Jordan, there has been adeliberate policy shift away from radio- and television-assisted instruction to focus on other types of ICT-assistedChart 2.1: Proportion of schools with a television or radio used for educational purposes (for ISCED levels 1-3),2008-09**%100806040200JordanDominican Rep.Costa RicaGuatemalaAndorraBrazilMexicoEthiopiaEgypt*St. LuciaBosnia and Herz.PalestineMauritiusBotswanaBahrainFinlandMalaysiaKorea (Rep.)SwedenOmanCroatiaUnited KingdomBruneiSingaporeMaltaProportion of total schools with a televisionProportion of total schools with a radioNote: * Refers to public schools only. **Or latest available year.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education; ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets; national sources.34

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsinstruction [UNESCO, 2009b]. This suggests that in some countries connecting schools to older ICTs is an alternativewhen newer ICTs are not available.ComputersDepending on the measurement objective, indicator (3) — the learners-to-computer ratio — may be calculated inseveral ways. The most basic method involves the ratio of total learners to total available computers in particularschools, irrespective of the intended use of the computers. A high value for this ratio depicts a situation where, onaverage, there are many learners for each available computer in the schools. In a country which, in theory, enjoysfull-scale deployment of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), this may signal either a low overall level of computeravailability in the schools in question, or the existence of digital gaps, which can be identified when calculating andanalysing this indicator by geographical region and individual school. Alternatively, the learner-to-computer ratio canbe calculated for schools where CAI is deployed. A high value in this case signals that a greater number of learnersmust share a fixed number of computers. Pedagogically speaking, this may imply that the available computers areinadequate to serve the learning and practice needs of the learners.In both circumstances a computer refers to a programmable electronic device that can store, retrieve and processdata, as well as share information in a highly structured manner. It performs high-speed mathematical or logical operationsaccording to a set of instructions. In collecting international data on the number of computers, a computerwill include personal computers (PCs), laptops, notebooks, terminals connected to mainframes and minicomputersthat are intended for shared use and are in working condition. Other additional criteria may be applied, such as theage of the computer, its configuration and capacity, the kinds of software available, etc. From a statistical perspective,the criteria for “working condition” of computers are left to the countries’ discretion, taking into considerationtheir own pedagogical requirements for schools, their technological environment and their financial capacities[UNESCO, 2009c].In the absence of national norms defined by pedagogues, a ratio of one learner to one computer suggests a perfectadequacy in the provision of a computer to all learners officially entitled to benefit from a computer in schools thatoffer CAI. However, except in cases where everyone has a privately owned computer, a perfect 1:1 match does notnecessarily constitute an ideal target, since sharing a school-owned computer might equally reflect cost-efficientmanagement of the resource. Not all subjects in curricula require the support of computers during the totality ofclass time scheduled in a week, a month or a year. This indicator also needs to be analysed in the context of paralleluse of other, non-computer ICTs in schools.Where national standards exist, a learner-to-computer ratio higher than the official norms implies that more effortsare required from policy-makers to equip schools with computers in order to ensure equitable opportunity for all entitledlearners across the country. By frequently updating this indicator, one can monitor and ensure that all schoolsmeet the required standard. Further methodological work will be required to test more robust measures than simpleaverages (e.g. median, percentiles) in order to improve cross-country comparisons. The ratios are a measure neitherof actual use of computers in schools nor of the time learners actually spend using computers [UNESCO, 2009c].The basic learner-to-computer ratio is an aggregate measure of the digital divide, irrespective of the type of schoolor intended use of computers. Chart 2.2 shows that the variation in the learner-to-computer ratio is very high acrosscountries. Countries such as Sweden have a computer for every three learners in public primary and secondaryschools, while some developing countries have very high ratios, namely Morocco (174:1), Dominican Republic (179:1)and Ghana (586:1). Belarus is an example of a developing country which has decreased its learner-to-computer ratiofrom 41:1 in 2000 to 24:1 in 2008 (Box 2.3). Based on the available data for 20 countries, the median leaner-tocomputerratio for public schools is 27:1.Whereas Chart 2.2 shows aggregate access to computers, there is a caveat in the sense that not all learners andteachers may have access to all of the available computers. Chart 2.3, on the other hand, shows the intended use ofthe computers in all primary and secondary schools. A high proportion of Sweden’s computers are used for administrativepurposes (25 per cent), whereas a relatively high proportion of the Republic of Korea’s computers are putto both administrative and pedagogical use (33 per cent). Bahrain has the highest proportion of computers assignedfor pedagogical use (94 per cent) while the proportion of computers for administrative use is relatively low, at six percent.35

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 2.2: Learner-to-computers ratio (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09*200150Learners-to-computer ratio (Total schools)Learners-to-computer ratio (Public schools)586100500SwedenFinlandKorea (Rep.)AustraliaSingaporeUnited KingdomMaltaBahrainHungaryAustriaEstoniaAndorraCzech Rep.LithuaniaCroatiaSlovak Rep.PolandLatviaChileMalaysiaRussiaMexicoOmanNauruJordanMauritiusBhutanBelarusThailandCosta RicaTurkeyBosnia and Herz.AlbaniaArgentinaSt. LuciaPalestineEgyptSt. VincentGhanaTunisiaGuatemalaMoroccoDominican Rep.Note: * Or latest available year. Includes estimates.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education; ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets; national sources.Chart 2.3: Proportion of computers available by intended use (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09*%1008070757881 8184 85 85 86 8794605840200401033171325197169615 14 1360 0 0112EstoniaKorea (Rep.)ArgentinaSwedenPolandOmanFinlandCosta RicaMauritiusBelarusMalaysiaJordanBahrainEgyptProportion of all computers which are strictly for pedagogical useProportion of all computers which are strictly for administrative useProportion of all computers which are used for both administrative and pedagogical useNote: *Or latest available year.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education.36

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsBox 2.3: Measuring progress — Case of Belarus 12Since 1998, the integration of ICTs in education in Belarus has been carried out under special state programmes. Indicatorsmonitoring ICTs in schools are calculated annually, and targets are tracked closely. To achieve universal connectivity, theobjective has been to set up computer labs that provide Internet access across educational institutions. By 2008, practicallyall schools (99.2 per cent) were equipped with at least one computer lab (Chart 1 Box 2.3). Since in larger schools (those with650 or more learners) one computer lab was considered insufficient to meet curricula needs, the Ministry of Education set anew target: less than 31 learners to one computer for all schools by 2010. The target is being closely tracked, and differencesin urban and rural schools are getting smaller (Chart 2 Box 2.3).Chart 1 Box 2.3: Proportion of schools with a .computer lab, BelarusChart 2 Box 2.3: Proportion of schools with a ratio .of less than 31 learners for one computer, Belarus%10095%1009080Rural Urban All907060Planned855080Rural Urban All2004 2005 2006 2007 200840302006 2007 2008 2010Source: Ministry of Education, Belarus.Source: Ministry of Education, Belarus.Chart 3 Box 2.3: Proportion of schools with Internetaccess, Belarus%10080By 2008, the learner-to-computer ratio in the country was 24,and all outdated computers had been replaced by moderncomputers. 13 Approximately 80 per cent of schools had Internetaccess and 67 per cent had dial-up Internet access, usedmainly for administrative purposes. The objective for 2010 isto connect all schools with Internet access, and 80 per cent ofschools with broadband access via cable or DSL to allow theuse of the Internet for pedagogical purposes (Chart 3 Box 2.3).60In order to evaluate the implementation of national policiesfor ICT in education, the Ministry of Education devel-Planned40oped an ICT-Readiness Index for Schools (ICT-R). The indexranks schools’ ICT-readiness by region, and is composed20of three indices which describe, respectively: readinessto use ICT for the development of ICT-literacy (Computing);quality, availability and improvement of educational02004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010services (Other subjects); and efficient educational managementand planning (Administrative work). Each of theLeased line Dial-up No accessthree component indices is in turn composed of subsidiarySource: Ministry of Education, Belarus.technical, programme and staff-related readiness indices.For the current 2007-2010 programme, 16 indicators havebeen selected to calculate the index. The weightings usedin the aggregation reflect the relative importance of appropriate goals and objectives determined in the state’s national ICT ineducation programme. Indicators and weightings are reviewed periodically when new programmes are under consideration.The ICT-R, which showed, for example, that in the capital region of Belarus, Minsk, schools’ ICT-readiness is 24 per cent higherthan the average for the rest of the regions, is used for policy purposes. The values for the index and its component indicesand subsidiary indices help authorities to make informed decisions regarding investment in ICTs and the allocation of humanresources in order to improve the efficiency of educational service delivery in schools.37

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsInternetIndicator (4), the proportion of schools with Internet access, is central to understanding connectivity at the primaryand secondary level and hence to assessing Target 2. It measures the overall level of access to the Internet in schools,and the opportunities or limitations in terms of the use of computers in primary and secondary schools. Access maybe through multiple wired or wireless devices (PCs, laptops, PDAs, smartphones, etc.). Given the paramount importanceof broadband access, connectivity is also tracked by the type of Internet access. The proportion of schools withfixed broadband Internet access provides a good indicator of the quality of Internet connections and the potential touse ICTs for pedagogical purposes. 14 Broadband (as opposed to narrowband) Internet access is particularly importantto exploit the Internet’s full potential, for example in providing students access to Internet resources or in supportingonline teacher training.A high value or percentage for the proportion of schools with Internet access implies a high degree of access to theInternet among the schools in a given country, while a low value indicates the contrary. The percentages by typeof Internet access can inform policies and decisions to expand and/or upgrade Internet connections in schools. Theindicator measures only the availability of Internet access in schools, and not intensity of use or the actual amountof time that learners spend on the Internet for educational purposes. The type of Internet connection and access inschools may also depend on existing national and subnational telecommunication infrastructures, which can be constrainedby electric power (Box 2.4) and other technological limitations in a developing context.Data to monitor Internet and broadband access in schools exist for many developed countries and a number of developingcountries (see Charts 2.4 and 2.5). They suggest that, by 2010, practically all schools in developed countries willbe connected to the Internet. Many developed countries have in fact stopped tracking ICT infrastructure in schools,since connectivity was approaching 100 per cent, and in most developed countries broadband penetration in schoolsis either approaching or has already reached 100 per cent. For example, according to a report released by the EuropeanUnion in 2006, the majority of schools in Europe had Internet access and in many countries, including Croatia,Sweden and the United Kingdom, 100 per cent of schools were already connected with broadband. 15 In the UnitedStates, all public schools were connected to the Internet as of 2006, and 97 per cent had a broadband connection. InCanada, 97 per cent of schools were connected to the Internet as early as 2004.By comparison, the level of school connectivity is lower for middle-income and developing countries in the Americas.Between 2007 and 2009, Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico and St Vincent and the Grenadines have come close toequipping half of their schools with Internet access, whereas Brazil and Chile have surpassed the 50 per cent mark. By2009, Chile had connected three quarters of its schools to the Internet, of which 67 per cent had broadband (Box 2.5).Uruguay has successfully provided all of its schools with broadband Internet access in a relatively short time, mainlythrough a government-driven project (Box 2.6).The developed economies in Asia and the Pacific display high levels of school connectivity, with all schools havingInternet access in Brunei, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Of these, Brunei, theRepublic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand offer 100 per cent broadband connectivity across schools. Australia hadalmost achieved full Internet connectivity in all schools as far back as 2003, and one objective of its new super fastNational Broadband Network project is to connect 90 per cent of schools to a fibre-optic connection with speeds upto 100 Mbit/s. 23 Unfortunately, data on ICTs in education are lacking for both India and China, the two most populatednations in the region. 24Available data from between 2007 to 2009 for the Arab States show that several Arab countries, including Jordan,Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, have connected over three quarters of their schools to the Internet. Bahrain has connectedall of its schools with broadband Internet access as well as a radio and a television set for educational purposes.This can be attributed in part to policies pursued by the Ministry of Education aimed at enhancing and elevating thelevel of education in Bahrain by integrating ICTs. The King Hamad’s School of the Future project, launched in 2004to connect and link all schools in the kingdom to the Internet, is an example of such an initiative [UNESCWA, 2009].Broadband penetration in schools is also relatively high in Jordan (73 per cent).Data on ICTs in education are particularly scarce in Africa and what data do exist suggest that there is much roomfor improvement. In Ethiopia and Senegal, less than ten per cent of schools are connected to the Internet, and only38

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsChart 2.4: Proportion of schools with Internet access (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09**100%8060Median: 77%40200BoliviaNauruGuatemala*EthiopiaDominican Rep.MoroccoSenegalParaguayBhutanSudanBotswanaPalestineColombiaMexicoSt. VincentUkraineArgentinaCosta Rica*AlgeriaEgyptBrazilBelarusOmanChileJordanRussia*Saudi ArabiaTunisiaMauritiusTurkeySt. LuciaAlbaniaEU 27 AverageCanadaAustraliaAndorraBahrainBosnia and Herz.BruneiCroatiaJapanMalaysiaNorwayKorea (Rep.)SingaporeThailandUnited StatesUruguayNote: **Or latest available year. Includes national estimates. *Refers to public schools only.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education; ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets (including data for Egypt, which was alsopart of the UIS Pilot Questionnaire); national sources.Chart 2.5: Proportion of schools with broadband Internet access (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09**%10080Median: 85%6040200BoliviaNauruMoroccoBelarusEgyptArgentinaBotswanaOmanSt. VincentRussia*Slovak Rep.ChileLithuaniaJordanMauritiusMalaysiaHungaryFinlandTurkeyEstoniaSt. LuciaAlbaniaUnited StatesThailandAndorraBahrainBosnia and Herz.BruneiCroatiaMaltaKorea (Rep.)SingaporeSwedenUnited KingdomUruguayNote: **Or latest available year. Includes national estimates. *Refers to public schools only.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education; ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets (including data for Egypt, which was alsopart of the UIS Pilot Questionnaire); national sources.39

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 2.4: Electricity before broadband?While the promise of broadband and wireless technologies heralds effective solutions for many education systems wishing toreap the benefits of ICT for their curricula, the relative scarcity of basic electric power in schools in many developing countriesis an obstacle to accessing many of the technologies that support pedagogical objectives. Since high-income countries havefull access to electric power in their educational institutions, monitoring this phenomenon is not seen as relevant. However,for the selection of countries for which data are available in Chart 1 Box 2.4, measuring progress in this area still has value. Insome developing countries, such as Ghana (37 per cent, 29 per cent), Senegal (26 per cent, 18 per cent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), only a minority of primary and secondary schools have electricity.Chart 1 Box 2.4: Proportion of primary and secondary schools with electricity (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2009*%100Proportion of total schools with electricityProportion of public schools with electricity88889593806055515640372629201850Ethiopia Senegal Ghana Morocco Guatemala Paraguay ArgentinaNote: *Or latest available year. Includes national estimates.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in EducationBotswana and Mauritius have data on both the percentage of schools connected to the Internet (23 and 85 per cent,respectively) and the percentage of schools with broadband (23 per cent and 75 per cent).Conclusions and recommendationsSetting targets and measuring progress in the area of ICTs in education involves a balancing act between identifyingquantifiable information to monitor international goals, on the one hand, and taking into account the heterogeneityof national circumstances, on the other. The four suggested indicators to track Target 2 serve to reconcile thesetwo conflicting aspects by monitoring the digital gap and the overall convergence between developing countries and40

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsBox 2.5: The Chilean model — Partnering to connect schoolsIn Chile, close collaboration between the Ministry of Education and Enlaces 16 has long been considered a model of goodpractice by many policy-makers. What initially started as a pilot project to connect schools has evolved over time into a nationalinitiative to systematically integrate ICTs in subsidized state schools. 17 With the help of Enlaces, the Chilean Centre forEducation and Technology has provided Internet access to approximately 75 per cent of schools. No fewer than 67 per cent ofschools have a broadband connection. 18From the point of view of many middle-income and developing countries, implementing a national connectivity initiative ofthis magnitude can be quite cost-intensive. Enlaces has used a variety of financing sources and mechanisms to fulfil its mandate.In 1998, the Ministry of Education reached an agreement with the Compania de Telecomunicaciones de Chile throughwhich the operator agreed to provide free unlimited Internet service to all schools in the country for a period of ten years. Aspart of its efforts to promote broadband access, Enlaces has been negotiating agreements with telecommunication operatorssince 2004 in order to obtain preferential rates for educational facilities, and subsequently established a fund through whichschools could apply for subsidies totaling 50 to 100 per cent of their broadband connection fee. 19Chile’s innovative thinking made it look beyond just connectivity towards teacher development and digital content long beforeother middle-income countries recognized the value added from educational technologies. At present, Enlaces is working withthe Fondo de Desarrollo de Telecomunicaciones, the country’s universal service fund, to develop a project that will roll outfibre-optic cable to Chile’s largest schools. 20Box 2.6: Uruguay closes the digital gapUruguay’s government, through its El Ceibal project, has made a strong commitment to making ICTs available in its schools,and to teachers and students, including the youngest ones. 21 By 2008, Uruguay had connected all of its primary and secondaryschools to the Internet, via a broadband connection. It further fulfilled its commitment to provide all primary school childrenand all teachers with a free laptop computer by the end of 2009.Closely linked to the One Laptop Per Child 22 project, which manufactures the low-cost XO computer specifically designed forchildren in developing countries, El Ceibal seeks to link education with social networking. Beyond introducing ICTs for teachingand learning, the programme also aims at providing free broadband Internet access for schools and communities at largethrough servers located in schools and other access points, using students’ XO computers. Since the XOs are laptop computerscapable of interconnecting with each other, they act as servers and form a wireless network.The project is founded on three pillars: to provide equal access, to enhance teaching and learning, and to integrate ICTs inschools in tandem with the environment outside school. For policy-makers, the priority is to provide equal opportunities forall primary school children and for various segments of society, a strategy designed to accelerate Uruguay’s integration in theinformation society.The findings of a preliminary study on monitoring and evaluation of El Ceibal [Salamano et al, 2009] detected some positiveoutcomes associated with the use of computers and Internet connectivity for teaching and learning. In particular, it showed anincrease in computer literacy among children (grades 1 to 6) and among their parents, and a closing of the intergenerationalICT gap.countries at advanced stages of ICT integration in education. Furthermore, the selected indicators aim to do justice toan array of technologies with applications in an educational context. By monitoring both “old” and “new” technologies,there is a recognition that technological infrastructures and circumstances at the national level vary at any giventime across countries, as well as over time.To make the target as concrete and measurable as possible, it is suggested that the word “all” be added in orderto seek to connect 100 per cent of educational institutions to either “old” or to “new” ICTs (or both) depending onnational circumstances, at least in the short term. At the same time, governments need to recognize the potential41

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsof broadband access, and aim to equip educational institutions with high-speed Internet access, which opens up fullaccess to educational material and firmly grounds schools in the information society.It is further suggested that Target 2 be amended to reflect that it is designed to track the availability of ICTs in primaryand secondary schools only. Monitoring ICT infrastructure is less relevant for higher-education institutions, since theyare expected to have basic access.Target 2 would then read: “Connect all secondary schools and primary schools with ICTs”Given today’s data limitations, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive review of progress towards achievingthe target. Based on available data, it is nevertheless possible to draw some conclusions for the most developedcountries and regions, especially in terms of Internet access in schools, the indicator which is currently tracked by thegreatest number of countries. The data presented in this chapter highlight that while schools in developed countriesare largely connected, and indeed to high-speed broadband networks, penetration levels in developing countriesvary considerably. Internet and especially broadband penetration in schools remains a major challenge in manydeveloping countries across the world. A number of developing countries which have initiated projects to bring ICTsto schools and have set clear targets have attained high levels of Internet and even broadband penetration. Thishighlights the importance of strong government policies and clear commitments and targets in the area of ICTs ineducation.Existing data on the learner-to-computer ratio show that there are sizeable variations between countries, with relativelymany computers for few students in most developed and high-income economies and less favourable ratios inthe developing world. While in general it must be seen as advantageous to have more computers for fewer students,it is not clear what an ideal ratio might be. The “ideal” ratio will depend a lot on national circumstances and on howcomputers are used, and it has been suggested that more research should be conducted in respect of this indicator.Only relatively few countries collect and publish data on the proportion of schools with “older” ICTs, namely TVs andradios. Penetration levels vary between developed and developing countries, but also among countries within eachcategory, suggesting that national policies and objectives vary. While some countries may try to achieve full penetrationfor both older and newer ICTs, others may see broadcasting technologies as a relevant alternative only if newertechnologies are not available or affordable. Bringing radios and TVs into schools could therefore be understood as ashort- to medium-term target that should be complemented by Internet access in the long term.42

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsNotes1Substantial inputs to this chapter have been provided by Mr Patrick Lucas from the UNESCO Institue for Statistics (UIS), Mr ClaudeAkpabie (UIS), M. Beatriz Valdez-Melgar (UIS) and Dr Katsiaryna Miniukovich (Ministry of Education of Belarus). These inputs are greatlyacknowledged.2There are a number of examples of schools, which provide access to the Internet for the community at large after school hours. ITU’s Connecta School, Connect a Community initiative (http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/connect/flagship_initiatives/connecting_children/index.html) is anexample of an effort to benefit both students and the communities in which they live by promoting broadband access in schools.3See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c2.4See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c4.5Information literacy is defined as the capacity of people to recognize their information needs, locate and evaluate the quality of information,store and retrieve information, make effective and ethical use of information and apply information to create and communicateknowledge. See [UNESCO, 2008].6The World Bank measured the percentage of schools connected to the Internet in its 2006 Information and Communications for DevelopmentReport, but the data presented were only available for selected countries, and for the year 2004.7The latest is: European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate. August 2006. General Benchmarking Access and Use ofICT in European Schools 2006: Final Report from Head Teacher and Classroom Teacher Surveys in 27 European Countries. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/benchmarking/index_en.htm.8“San Salvador Commitment,” in Second Ministerial Conference on the Information society in Latin America and the Caribbean, LC/R.2144,(San Salvador, 2008).http://www.eclac.org/socinfo/elac/default.asp?idioma=IN.9http://www.eafricacommission.org/projects/127/nepad-e-schools-initiative.10See “Australia’s Digital Economy: Future Directions,” Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (2009).http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/117681/DIGITAL_ECONOMY_FUTURE_DIRECTIONS_FINAL_REPORT.pdf.11ISCED refers to the International Standard Classification of Education and is used to define the levels and fields of education. ISCED levels1, 2, and 3 refer to primary, lower secondary and (upper) secondary education. For more information, see [UNESCO 1997].12The content of this box was contributed by by Dr Katsiaryna Miniukovich, Leading mathematician, Central Information and AnalyticalCentre at the Ministry of Education of Belarus. See [Ministry of Education of Belarus, 2009].13Modern computer is considered as IBM-compatible with 32-bit operating system supporting graphic interface.14Fixed broadband Internet refers to high-speed connectivity for public use of at least 256 kbit/s or more in one or both directions (downloadand upload). It includes cable modem Internet connections, DSL Internet connections of at least 256 kbit/s or higher, fibre and otherfixed broadband technology connections (such as satellite broadband Internet, ethernet LANs, fixed-wireless access, wireless local areanetwork, WiMAX, etc.). See [Partnership, 2010].15By 2006 already, 71% of schools in the EU 27 countries were connected to broadband Internet access.16Centro de Educacion y Tecnologia (Enlaces), Ministerio de Educacion, available at:http://www.enlaces.cl/index.php?t=44&i=2&cc=1273&tm=2.17The education system in Chile is decentralized with municipal governments and private schools responsible for most administrative andfinancing aspects. Private institutions account for 43% of primary and secondary students. Some municipal schools are subsidized by thefederal government. The Enlaces programme only applies to subsidized municipal schools. See http://www.chile-usa.org/education.html.18Enlaces en Cifras, available at: http://www.enlaces.cl/index.php?t=44&i=2&cc=230&tm=2.19Enlaces: 15 Años Integrando Tecnologia a la Educacion Chilena, page 64, available at:http://www.enlaces.cl/tp_enlaces/portales/tpee371c23bs52/uploadImg/File/libro_enlaces.pdf.20En Marzo Habra Banda Ancha Real para Escuelas, La Nacion, October 2008, available at:http://www.lanacion.cl/prontus_noticias_v2/site/artic/20081021/pags/20081021215239.html.21See: http://www.ceibal.edu.uy/.22For more information on this project, see: http://www.laptop.org.23See Joint Media Release by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the Ministers for Finance and for Broadband, 7 April 2009, Canberra,at: http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/022.24InfoDev is coordinating a survey of the use of information and communication technology for education in India and South Asia, includingdata on the connectedness of schools, see:http://www.infodev.org/en/Project.103.html.43

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesMinistry of Education of Belarus (2009). Ministry of Education database — Central Information and AnalyticalCentreSalamano, I., P. Pagés, A. Baraibar, H. Ferro, L. Pérez and M. Pérez, (2009), Monitoreo y evaluacion de impactosocial del Plan CEIBAL. Metodología y primeros resultados a nivel nacional.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010). Core ICT indicators, Geneva.UNCTAD (2007). Manual for the Production of Statistics on the Information Economy. New York/Geneva: UNCTAD.UNESCO (1997). International Standard Classification of Education. UNESCO, Paris, 1997.UNESCO (2008). Towards Information Literacy Indicators. UNESCO, Paris, 2006.UNESCO-UIS (2008). Proposal for internationally comparable core indicators on ICT in education. Montreal:UNESCO Institute for Statistics.UNESCO-UIS (2009a). Projecting the Global Demand for Teachers: Meeting the Goal of Universal Primary Educationby 2015. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.UNESCO-UIS (2009b). Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education.UNESCO-UIS (2009c). Guide to Measuring Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Education. Montreal:UNESCO Institute for Statistics.UN ESCWA (2005). National Profile for the Information Society of Bahrain.WSIS (2003). Geneva Plan of Action. Geneva: ITU.44

Target 2: Connect universities, colleges, secondary schools and primary schools with ICTsAnnex 2.1: ICTs in schools (ISCED levels 1-3), 2009**Country% of schools withradio% of schools withTV% of schools withInternet% of schoolswith broadbandLearners to onecomputerAfricaBotswana 77 2009 100 2009 23 2009 23 2009 ...Ethiopia ... 35 2008 2 2008 ... ...Ghana ... ... ... ... 117 2009Mauritius 93 2008 97 2008 85 2008 75 2008 20 2008Senegal ... ... 5 2008 ... ...Arab StatesAlgeria ... ... 53 2008 ... ...Bahrain 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 6 2008Egypt 47* 2008 55 2009 55 2009 9 2009 56 2008Jordan 0.1 2009 0.1 2009 80 2009 73 2009 20 2009Morocco ... ... 3 2008 2 2008 174* 2008Oman 100 2008 100 2008 62 2008 23 2008 19 2008Saudi Arabia ... ... 80 2007 ... ...Sudan ... ... 20 2005 ... ...Tunisia 81 2008 30* 2008Asia and the PacificAustralia ... ... 99 2003 ... 5 2007Bhutan ... ... 16 2008 ... 21 2008Brunei Darussalam 100 2009 ... 100 2009 100 2009 ...Japan ... ... 100 2005 ... ...Korea (Rep.) 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 5 2008Malaysia 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 80 2008 13 2008Nauru ... ... 0 2009 0 2009 19 2009Singapore 100 2009 ... 100 2009 100 2009 5 2009Thailand 72 2008 100 2008 100 2008 100 2009 25 2008CISBelarus ... ... 61* 2008 7* 2008 23* 2008Russia ... ... 80* 2008 43* 2008 15*Ukraine ... ... 40 2007 ... ...EuropeAlbania ... ... 96 2009 96 2009 32 2009Andorra 100 2009 10 2009 100 2009 100 2009 9 2009Austria ... ... 100 2007 ... 6 2008Belgium ... ... 97 2006 ... ...Bosnia and Herzegovina 9 2008 75 2008 100 2008 100 2008 30 2008Croatia 100 2009 100 2009 100 2009 100 2009 9 2009Cyprus ... ... 95 2006 ... ...Czech Republic ... ... 99 2006 ... 9 2008Denmark ... ... 100 2009 ... ...Estonia ... ... 97 2008 86 2008 6 2008Finland 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 85 2008 4 2008France ... ... 90 2006 ... ...Germany ... ... 98 2006 ... ...Hungary ... ... 99 2009 ... 6 2009Ireland ... ... 98 2006 ... ...Italy ... ... 98 2006 ... ...Latvia ... ... 100 2009 ... 11 2009Lithuania ... ... 69 2009 69 2009 9 2009Luxembourg ... ... 96 2006 ... ...Malta 100 2009 ... 100 2009 100 2009 6 2009Norway ... ... 100 2009 ... ...Poland ... ... 93 2006 ... 10 2008Portugal ... ... 92 2006 ... ...Slovak Republic ... ... 100 2008 66 2008 9 2008Slovenia ... ... 100 2006 ... ...Spain ... ... 95 2006 ... ...Sweden 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 100 2008 3 2008The Netherlands ... ... 100 2006 ... ...Turkey ... ... 86 2009 86 no yr. 26 2009United Kingdom 100 no yr. 100 2009 100 2009 100 2009 5 200945

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsAnnex 2.1: ICTs in schools (ISCED levels 1-3), 2009** (continued)Country% of schools withradio% of schools withTV% of schools withInternet% of schools withbroadbandLearners to onecomputerThe AmericasArgentina ... ... 42 2007 22 2007 34 2007Bolivia ... ... 0 2008 0 2008 ...Brazil ... 25 2009 56 2009 ... ...Canada ... ... 100 1999 ... ...Chile ... ... 75 2009 67 2009 13 2009Colombia ... ... 29 2008 ... ...Costa Rica 3 2008 2 2008 44* 2008 ... 25 2008Dominican Republic ... 1 2008 2 2008 ... 179* 2008Guatemala 0.2 2009 3 2009 0* 2009 ... 95* 2009Mexico ... 34 2008 31 2008 ... 16 2008Paraguay ... ... 8 2008 ... ...St. Lucia 44 2009 64 2009 95 2009 90 2009 34 2009St. Vincent and the... ... 33 2009 31 2009 60 2009GrenadinesUguguay ... ... 100 2008 100 2008 ...United States ... ... 100 2005 97 2005 ...Other economiesPalestinian Authority 96 2009 91 2009 23 2009 ... 37 2009Note **Or latest available year. Includes estimates. Existing data are presented for total schools (public and private), unless marked by an* which indicates only public schools. “...”: data not available.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education; ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets; national sources.46

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsTarget 3: Connect scientific and researchcentres with ICTs 1IntroductionAccording to the Geneva Plan of Action, WSIS Target 3 aims “to connect scientific and research centres with ICTs.” Thenature of this information and communication technology connectivity is undefined; however, further guidance isprovided in WSIS Action Line C7 (ICT applications), in regard to e-science, which states that stakeholders should “promoteaffordable and reliable high-speed Internet connection for all universities and research institutions to supporttheir critical role in information and knowledge production, education and training, and to support the establishmentof partnerships, cooperation and networking between these institutions.” 2 It is therefore clear that the ICT connectivityof interest is high-speed Internet connectivity facilitating collaborative research.Target 3 is thus of relevance not only to WSIS Action Line C7, but also to Action Lines C2 (Information and communicationinfrastructure) and C3 (Access to information and knowledge), as well as to WSIS Target 2 (which originallyincluded connecting universities).Universities and research centres have been closely connected with the Internet since its inception. In some developingcountries, the major universities or academic network even acted as the first or main Internet service provider(ISP). Today, universities and research centres continue to pioneer advances in ICTs in respect of network infrastructure,services and applications, and the latest developments in grid and cloud computing. Advanced research andeducation networks not only serve to further knowledge and facilitate scientific discoveries — they can also helpbuild human capital and promote economic development. It is thus essential to monitor access to ICTs by scientificand research centres and to track the power and reach of academic and research networks around the world, asacknowledged by Target 3.This chapter focuses on public research centres, and reviews the indicators required for monitoring Target 3. It seeksto illustrate what has been achieved so far in different regions of the world, and outlines possible policy options for47

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsachieving the target by 2015, in order to give policy-makers some ideas for formulating policies that take account ofthe speed, quality and reliability of telecommunication infrastructure for scientific research purposes.Scientific and research centresScientific research is constantly evolving, matched by advances in data analysis and networking technologies. Forexample, particle physics has only existed as a separate discipline for the last century, and modern bioengineeringfor a mere two decades, but the data-computing requirements of advanced bioengineering are set to outstrip thoseof particle physics during the next three years, at current growth rates. Advances in computing power and ICTs areshaping modern science, and driving new forms of collaborative research and networking between institutions.It is important to identify the set of scientific and research institutions within a country. Scientific and technical researchhas been defined by UNESCO. 3 Further UNESCO definitions delimit fundamental research (pure and oriented)and applied research and development (R&D). 4 Modern definitions of research frequently distinguish research accordingto the agents and funding (public or private) involved, which may often influence the knowledge outcomes.The definition of tertiary education institutes (including universities) is provided by UNESCO’s International StandardClassification of Education (ISCED). 5 Most universities should be included in the set of scientific and research centresfor Target 3, but not all — not all universities offer science degrees, and not all universities conduct research.These UNESCO definitions are important, as they determine the overall set of scientific and research centres to beconnected with ICTs under Target 3. This set of research institutions is likely to be known to the national government,and may have been endorsed by UNESCO. Having said that, the categorization of a research institution does notnecessarily give an idea of its role in education or research, the nature of its research or the extent of collaborationwith other institutions.It is also essential to define the nature of the ICT connectivity. For some research institutions, basic connectivity tothe Internet and online access to scientific journals may be sufficient for many of their research needs. WSIS ActionLine C7, in particular § 22 thereof on e-science, prescribes that the ICT access should comprise an affordable andreliable high-speed Internet connection. However, the WSIS outcome documents do not specify what the Internetconnectivity should be used for, other than “information and knowledge production, education and training, and tosupport the establishment of partnerships, cooperation and networking.” In addition to simply ensuring access tothe Internet, “connecting research centres” could also be interpreted as meaning establishing links and networksbetween them.For modern scientific and research purposes, the existence of a national research and education network (NREN) isone indicator of the use of ICTs by the research and education community, and thus, by inference, constitutes anindicator of a country’s ability to participate in international research (see Box 3.1 — What is an NREN?). As scientificresearch continues to evolve, connection to and participation in an NREN will become increasingly important. Europe’sDelivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe (DANTE) 6 notes that NRENs perform two main functionsin relation to scientific research:• NRENs act as high-capacity ICT infrastructures to support the work of researchers, promote collaboration,transfer data and share information or confirm experiments;• NRENs can also facilitate new research in their own right, by providing platforms and experimental test-beds fortesting new services and advanced networking technologies.A list of 120 known NRENs is presented in Annex 3.1, revealing substantial regional disparities (Chart 3.1). There area total of 14 NRENs located in Africa, 20 in the Americas, 25 in Asia and the Pacific, 12 in the Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS) and 38 in Europe. The CIS is notable for being the only region where all countries have establishedNRENs. The technologies used by an NREN are an important factor, as not all types of connectivity are equal,and fibre-based networks are likely to be more “future-proof” than some other types of technology.48

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsBox 3.1: What is a national research and education network (NREN)?A national research and education network (NREN) is a specialized Internet service provider dedicated to supporting the needsof the research and education communities within a country. It usually administers and supports a high-speed backbonenetwork, often offering dedicated channels for individual research projects. The term “NREN” was originally a service markof the U.S. government, registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. However, since then, the term has come to beapplied to refer to national research and education networks more widely and, by inference, their regional and internationalconnectivity.NREN in the United States had four original purposes, some of which are mirrored in other countries:• To encourage widespread use of high-capacity networks by the research and education communities to access highperformancecomputing systems and research facilities• To develop advanced high-performance networking technologies and accelerate their deployment and evaluation inresearch and education environments• To stimulate the widespread availability at reasonable cost of advanced network products and services from the privatesector for the general research and education communities• To catalyse the rapid deployment of a high-speed general-purpose digital communications infrastructure for the nation.Another example is India’s three educational networks — the Education and Research Network (ERNET), BIOGRID (a VPN ofthe Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) and GARUDA (grid computing initiative). Each serves its respectiveclient bases — ERNET is the exclusive provider of international connectivity to all higher-education institutes. All the networksdeliver network connectivity (including Internet access) to universities, technology institutes and various government agencieson a national basis. Private-sector operators provide further international connectivity via cable and satellite for personaland commercial consumption.Several points emerge from these examples. Firstly, the network administrator often acts as an ISP and is closely identifiedwith the network it oversees. Secondly, such NRENs usually offer a mix of dedicated channels and public Internet access, oftenthrough a combination of dedicated backbones, leased lines or private-sector operators. Thirdly, such networks connect arange of different institutions, often with different needs. In order to provide services to diverse clients, high capacity is oftenimportant.Source: NREN definition from http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/implementation/1995/section.4.3.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_research_and_education_network.“High Performance Computing Networks for Research, Education, Science and Technologyin India,” available at: http://garudaindia.in/pdf/papers_presentations/India-High%20Performance%20Computing%20Networks%20&%20NRENS.pdf.Chart 3.1: Countries with a national research and education network (NREN), by region, 2010%100NRENNo NREN present80604020100%88%64%62%57%52%33%0CISEuropeAsia and the PacificWorldAmericasArab StatesAfricaSource: ITU (see also Annex 3.1).49

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsMeasuring Target 3 — Proposed indicatorsFor the purposes of measuring Target 3, the focus is on public research centres; privately-owned or privately-fundedinfrastructures used for scientific research are not considered, since they are proprietary and may be difficult tomeasure (this is consistent with DANTE’s definition of research networking as the provision of data communicationsfor the use of the research and academic community). 7 Nor is the target concerned with day-to-day operational networkperformance indicators.The following indicators are proposed to monitor this target:1. Percentage of public scientific and research centres 8 with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Presence of a national research and education network (NREN), by bandwidth (Mbit/s)3. Number of national research and education network (NREN) nodes4. Percentage of universities connected to the national research and education network (NREN), by type of connection(narrowband, broadband)5. Percentage of public scientific and research centres connected to the national research and education network(NREN), by type of connection (narrowband, broadband).The main emphasis of Target 3 is on “ICT connectivity.” However, connectivity alone does not provide any informationas to what the Internet access is likely to be used for — basic Internet connections may be utilized for e-mail only,and not collaborative research or data processing which can sometimes require vast capacity. In fact, depending onthe speed, even a broadband Internet connection may still be insufficient for advanced research, data transfer andprocessing.The scale and connectivity of NRENs differ greatly. The number of NREN nodes in a country depicts the size of theNREN, but such nodes are usually not all scientific and research centres and often include other institutes, such asschools, museums, libraries, hospitals or government departments.The Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association (TERENA) collects data on various aspects ofNRENs, mainly in European countries but also for some other networks (see Box 3.2, and Annex 3.2 for an extract oftheir questionnaire).Classification of NRENs and the collection of data on NRENs and NREN bandwidth come up against several measurementchallenges, however. Firstly, it is not always clear how “sovereignty” can be attributed to an internationalnetwork. For example, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is an international organization comprisingtwenty countries, and it is not possible to ascribe its bandwidth to Switzerland or France as its host territories.There may also be a risk of double-counting of bandwidth for trans-border links — i.e. both countries may report thebandwidth of a single link, which may thus end up being counted twice.The main focus for many NREN managers is on collecting information on network performance, including performanceof the NREN and its connectivity to other NRENs through the backbone. Indeed, beyond initial installation andexpansion, their concern will be monitoring the real-time status of the network in terms of traffic volumes, reliability,security and quality of service (QoS). Network performance indicators include link usage data (e.g. average trafficvolumes per day, month, year); achieved data rates; latency and jitter statistics (e.g. one-way delay, delay variation);packet-loss rates; number of outages and/or breaches; and security concerns (e.g. the number of people authorizedto access the network at any point in time). Methods used for collecting and analysing performance data varybetween research and education network domains, 9 from simple data on levels of link usage and traffic-volume statisticsto detailed protocol analysis. 10 However, such detailed performance data are unlikely to prove relevant for thepurposes of monitoring the growth in capacity of international scientific and research networks.50

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsBox 3.2: Data collected by the Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association (TERENA)The TERENA Compendium — TERENA’s main reference document — defines a point of presence (PoP) as a point on the NRENbackbone which can connect client networks or aggregations of client networks or external networks [TERENA, 2009]. Institutionscan be connected through a direct PoP on the NREN backbone, or through a metropolitan access network (MAN) or radioaccess network (RAN), or, alternatively, served through a connected site.The TERENA Compendium asks for:• the total number of PoPs on the NREN;• the number of places for core networking routing;• the number of managed sites (where routing or switching equipment is managed); and• the number of circuits carrying production traffic.In addition, TERENA also poses questions relating to the availability of optical PoPs and total length of dark fibre in kilometers,replacing a previous question asking for an estimate of bandwidth multiplied by distance, which NRENs found increasinglydifficult to answer. TERENA asks for the typical core usable backbone capacity of the NREN, although questions on capacitydistinguish between usable capacity, maximum capacity (excluding back-up routes) and total capacity (for different point-topointIP links). The total capacity of the network does not apply to each institution that connects to it, and this distinction ismade clear by these definitions. The TERENA Compendium distinguishes between lower, upper and typical access speeds todifferent types of institutions, in implicit recognition of their different needs.These indicators reveal the potential capacity of an NREN, the traffic volumes and transmission speeds of any research network,and its actual connectivity. They also enable growth in the extent, speed and capacity of networks to be monitored overtime.Status of the targetITU conducted an ad-hoc survey in 2009 in the context of monitoring the WSIS targets. This survey included questionson Internet access in research centres (Table 3.1) and on NRENs (Table 3.2).Every country for which data are available reported that scientific and research centres have Internet access, almostalways with a broadband connection (Table 3.1). The number of reported scientific and research centres variesgreatly across countries, but this might reflect differences in definitions, not to mention differences in country size,population, development and education levels.Several countries also reported information on the presence of an NREN. An NREN exists in the majority of reportingcountries, but the bandwidth of the network varies greatly, from 1.55 Mbit/s and 2 Mbit/s in Mexico and Albania,respectively, to 40 000 Mbit/s in the United Kingdom (Table 3.2). The survey did not include questions on whetherthe NREN was linked to other countries or other regional networks, but this information would be useful to collectin the future.The number of nodes and countries covered are common indicators reported by any international collaborative researchnetwork — for example, APAN covers 16 countries, TEIN2 covers 10 Asian countries, GÉANT2 and LHCG cover34 countries, CLARA covers 15 countries, EUMEDCONNECT2 covers seven and NORDUNet five. According to DANTE,the speed of the fastest links in pan-European networks has increased by a factor of 5 000 over the last decade, whilethe number of European countries connected has more than doubled over the same period. 1151

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 3.1: Public scientific and research centres with access to the Internet, 2009*CountryNumber of publicscientific andresearch centresNumber of publicscientific andresearch centreswith Internet access(any type ofconnection)% of public scientificand researchcentres withInternet access(any type of connection)Number of publicscientific andresearch centreswith Internet access(broadbandconnection only)% of public scientificand researchcentres withInternet access(broadband connectiononly)Albania 50 50 100 48 96Andorra 2 2 100 2 100Bhutan 5 5 100 ... 100Bolivia 148 ... ... ... ...Bosnia and Herzegovina 16 16 100 16 100Botswana 3 3 100 3 100Brunei 0 0 ... 0 ...Bulgaria 139 139 100 139 100Croatia 51 51 100 51 100Denmark 73 73 100 73 100Djibouti 1 1 100 1 100Egypt 455 455 100 455 100Hungary 57 57 100 57 100Korea (Rep.) 27 27 100 27 100Latvia 126 126 100 126 100Lithuania 111 ... ... ... ...Morocco 22 22 100 22 100Myanmar ... 40 ... ... ...Nauru 0 0 ... 0 ...Netherlands 100 100 100 100 100New Zealand 16 ... ... ... ...Paraguay 4 ... ... ... ...Singapore 21 21 100 21 100United Kingdom 153 ... ... ... ...Note: *Or latest year available. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.TERENA also collects data on connection policy, e.g. which institutions are formally permitted to connect to theNREN, and the extent to which connection is achieved (Table 3.3). All NRENs allow universities, research institutesand, with four exceptions, higher-education institutes to connect to the network. For other institutions, there are significantdifferences in policy between NRENs. For example, some NRENs may only connect government departmentsthat are directly related to research and education [TERENA, 2008].In many countries, all universities are connected to the NREN, although in some countries the proportion of universitiesconnected to the NREN may be much lower, even 50 per cent or less, e.g. Georgia (50 per cent), Belarus (35 percent), Israel (25 per cent), Ukraine (22 per cent), Macedonia (20 per cent) and the Czech Republic (7 per cent). Theproportion of research institutes connected to the NREN tends to be lower than the proportion of universities connectedto the NREN, except in Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine.The bandwidth of NRENs 12 in EU and EFTA countries grew significantly between 2001 and 2008, and further increasesare expected in the near future (Table 3.4). For the EU/EFTA countries, the average bandwidth doubled over theperiod.52

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsTable 3.2: NRENs, 2009*CountryAlbaniaDoes your countryhave a nationaleducationaland researchnetwork?YesName of the .networkAlbanian AcademyNetworkWebsite of the networkBandwidth of thenetwork (Mbit/s)Under construction 2Andorra No - - -Bhutan No - - -Bolivia No - - -Bosnia and Herzegovina No - - -Botswana No - - -BrazilYesRede Nacional de Esinoe Pesquisawww.rnp.br ...Brunei Darussalam No - - -BulgariaCroatiaYesYesBulgarian Networkand Research Network(NREN-BG)Croatian Academic andResearch Network —CARNetwww.nren-bg.eu 1 000www.carnet.hr 10 000Czech Republic Yes CESNET 2 www.cesnet.cz 10 000Denmark Yes Forskningsnettet www.forskningsnettet.dk ...EgyptYesEgyptian universitiesnetwork (EUN)Finland Yes Funetwww.eun.org 310www.csc.fi/english/institutions/funet/index_htmlHaiti No - - -Hungary Yes NIIF/Hungarnet www.niif.hu 10 000Korea (Rep.) Yes KOREN, KREONET www.koren.kr, www.kreonet.re.kr ...Latvia Yes SigmaNet www.sigmanet.lv 2 500LithuaniaYesLITNET, Academic andResearch Network inLithuaniawww.litnet.lt ...Mexico Yes CUDI www.cudi.edu.mx 1.55Morocco Yes MARWAN www.marwan.ma 100Nauru No - - -New ZealandSingaporeSlovak RepublicYesYesYesResearch and EducationAdvanced NetworkNew Zealand Ltd(REANNZ)Singapore AdvancedResearch andEducation NetworkSingARENSANET — Slovak AcademicNetworkhttp://reannz.co.nz/home/ 10 000www.singaren.net.sg 10 200http://www.sanet.sk ...Slovenia Yes ARNES www.arnes.si ...Sweden Yes SUNET http://basun.sunet.se ...Thailand Yes UNINET and ThaiRENwww.uni.net.th/UniNet/Eng/index_eng.phpwww.thairen.net.th/NewThaiRen/Thai/index_th.php#Turkey Yes ULAKBIM http://www.ulakbim.gov.tr/eng/ulaknet 3 000United Kingdom Yes JANET www.ja.net/company/about.html 40 000Note: *Or latest year available. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.......53

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsThe growth in average bandwidth masks significant differences, however. For some NRENs, bandwidth remainedroughly the same, whereas for others (e.g. CyNet and ARNES), it increased a hundredfold or more. The highestaverage NREN bandwidth capacities in Europe in 2008 were 20 Gbit/s, as against 10 Gbit/s in 2006. In comparison,CANARIE of Canada had a bandwidth capacity of 50 Gbit/s in 2007. The evolution of bandwidth capacity in the“Other” countries in Table 3.4 reflects the effect of the introduction of affordable Gigabit ethernet technology, whichis now used by many countries. In most countries, bandwidth capacity will evolve to multiples of 10 Gbit/s. Furthermore,even though many EU/EFTA countries already have high capacities, they foresee further upgrades in the nexttwo years. Many other countries also expect to upgrade to Gigabit capacities.TERENA also notes a clear trend in the bandwidth of universities [TERENA, 2008]. In 2003, the “average” universitywas connected to the NREN at Megabit capacity; by 2008, that had increased to Gigabit capacity. TERENA’s data showa clear growth in total core capacity for NRENs in 44 countries over the period 2001-2008 (Chart 3.2, left). Over thesame period, the number of countries with NRENs with capacity of 10 Gbit/s or more also grew considerably (Chart3.2, right). The trend is less pronounced in the countries outside the EU/EFTA area. Furthermore, the increases tendto occur in steps, as new technologies are introduced. However, the organizational set-up of universities and otherinstitutes may vary significantly across countries, which can have an effect on university bandwidth requirements.For example, research institutes may be part of universities, but not in all countries. There may also be substantialdifferences among countries in terms of the number and/or size of universities. A university may have a single link tothe NREN, or multiple links, for example, to faculties or schools that form part of it, but are geographically at differentlocations. In terms of total access capacity, in the EU/EFTA countries for which data are available, more than 80 percent of the access bandwidth capacity on average (weighted) is used for the tertiary education sector.In addition to connecting universities and research centres to NRENs, it is also important to connect NRENs to eachother, for example through regional networks. The Observatory for the Information Society in Latin America (OSILAC)collected data on the characteristics of NRENs in Latin-American countries, including whether they were connectedto the regional network RedCLARA (see Annex 3.3.) [OSILAC, 2007]. Almost all regions now enjoy positive spilloversfrom access to advanced research and education networks — for example, CERN’s Global Lambda Interchange Facilityincludes connectivity to all global regions except Africa.In some regions, NRENs are being aggregated into pan-regional networks — for example, the CARINE network beingset up across the CIS countries. The extension of high-capacity connectivity to a region often prompts countries thatdid not previously have a research and education network to establish one — this happened, for example, in the caseof the ALICE project to connect Central and Latin American research institutions to European research institutions.The growth of these networks is usually project-driven and funded on an individual project basis.Chart 3.2: Selected characteristics of NRENs in Europe, 2001-2008MbpsTotal bandwidth of NRENs, 44 countries,2001-2008200 000180 000160 000140 000120 000100 00080 00060 00040 00020 00002002 2004 2006 2008Number of countries14121086420Number of countries with NRENsof >10 Gbps, 2001-20082002 2004 2006 2008Source: ITU (see also Annex 3.1).54

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsTable 3.3: Types of institutions for which connection to the NREN is allowed (%)*, selected countries, 2008Country NREN UniversitiesInstitutes ofhigher/ furthereductionResearch institutesSecondaryschoolsPrimary schoolsLibraries, museums,nationalarchivesHospitals (otherthan universityhospitals)Governmentdepartments(national, regional,local)OthersEU/EFTA countriesAustria ACOnet 100 50 50 + + 20 20 10 -Belgium BELNET 95 5 80 30 35 5 5 10 +Cyprus CYNET 100 10 100 - - - - - +Czech Republic CESNET 7 3 6 36 7 9 8 12 +Denmark UNI-C 100 80 50 - - 5 10 - +Estonia EENet 82 34 49 57 57 11 + 1 -Finland Funet 100 - 48.1 - - 10 - 1 +France RENATER 100 + + + - + + + -Germany DFN 98 98 93 + + + + + -Greece GRNET S.A. 100 100 100 100 99.8 1 - 1 +Hungary NIIF/HUNGARNET 100 80 100 5 0.2 85 30 1 +Iceland Rhnet 100 90 65 + - 10 - - -Ireland HEAnet 100 100 60 96 96 1 - 2 +Italy GARR 100 100 98 0.5 1 7 12 5 +Latvia SigmaNet 70 5 19 2.5 - 3.2 1.8 + +Lithuania LITNET 100 85 92 78 16 16 11 5 +Luxembourg RESTENA 100 100 100 100 80 50 90 3 -Malta UoM, IT Services 100 50 + + + + +Netherlands SURFnet 100 95 80 2 0.5 15 1 - +Norway UNINETT 100 90 50 8 13 30 - - +Poland PIONIER 100 + 100 + + + + + +Portugal FCCN 95 90 90 100 100 - - 2 -55

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 3.3: Types of institutions for which connection to the NREN is allowed (%)*, selected countries, 2008 (continued)Country NREN UniversitiesInstitutes ofhigher/ furthereductionResearch institutesSecondaryschoolsPrimary schoolsLibraries, museums,nationalarchivesHospitals (otherthan universityhospitals)Governmentdepartments(national, regional,local)OthersSlovak Republic SANET 100 100 100 10 5 10 - 10 -Slovenia ARNES 100 98 80 95 80 50 - - -Spain RedIRIS 100 - 95 - - 3 35 5 +Sweden SUNET 100 + + - - + - + +Switzerland SWITCH 100 5 15 5 + 10 + 10 +United Kingdom JANET(UK) 100 100 100 95 100 + - + +Romania RoEduNet 100 80 85 75 20 70 - 25 -Bulgaria BREN 75 10 90 100 6 1 - - -Other countriesBelarus BASNET 35 + 31 + + 14 2 1 -Croatia CARNet 100 100 100 50 50 1 0.5 0.5 +Georgia GRENA 50 40 75 30 - 1 0.5 0.5 +Israel IUCC 25 - 3 - - + + - -Macedonia MARNet 20 + 38 + + 34 + 10 +Moldova RENAM 62 25 80 + + 30 5 5 +Montenegro MREN 70 - 50 20 20 20 - 10 -Morocco MARWAN 100 96 50 + + 10 + 3 -Russian FederationRBNet/RUNNet 70 2 40 10 - 4 - 1 -Serbia AMRES 95 5 40 2 + 5 5 5 +Turkey ULAKBIM 95 - 60 - - 1 - 1 -Ukraine UARNET 22 45 34 + + 5 - 12* Note: + means it it is is allowed but the percentage is is not reported, - - means it it is is not allowed. The percentages in in the table show the percentage of of the total number of of institutions connected to to the NREN.Public institutions connected to the NREN by other ISPs are not taken into account.Source: TERENA Compendium 2008, Table 2.2.1, pp 25-26.56

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsTable 3.4: Bandwidth of NRENs, Mbit/s, 2001-2008, and expected change for 2010Country NREN 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010EU/EFTA countriesAustria ACOnet 155 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000Multi 10 Gbit/s Vienna Core,10 Gbit/s Austrian BackboneBelgium BELNET 622 1 000 4 976 4 976 4 976 10 000 10 000 10 000 Between 10 and 20 Gbit/sBulgaria BREN ... ... 2 100 10 155 100 100 2.5 - 10 Gbit/sCyprus CyNet ... ... 2 34 2 2 1 000 1 000 1 Gbit/s Ethernet networkCzech Republic CESNET 2 488 2 488 2 500 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 - 40 Gbit/sDenmark UNI-C 622 622 622 1 000 2 488 2 488 2 000 2 000 DWDM ring with multiple 10 GEstonia EENet 24 60 100 100 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 10 Gbit/sFinland Funet 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 500 2 50010 G in most cases (IP service);lighpath availability to most PoPsFrance RENATER 2 488 ... 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 500 2 500 10 Gbit/sGermany DFN 622 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 SimilarGreece GRNET ... 310 310 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 500 2 500 n x 10 Gbit/sHungaryNIIF/HUNGARNET155 2 488 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 Gbit/sIceland Rhnet ... 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 10 Gbit/sIreland HEAnet 155 310 310 1 000 1 000 1 000 10 000 10 000 n x 10 Gbit/sItaly GARR ... 2 488 7 500 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 40 Gbit/sLatvia SigmaNet 100 100 100 100 2 488 10 000 1 000 1 290 3500 MbitLithuania LITNET 4 155 155 155 310 310 1 000 1 000 ...Luxembourg RESTENA 10 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 10 Gbit/sMalta UoMallta ... ... ... 100 45 1 000 1 000 1 000 2 Gbit/sNetherlands SURFnet 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 20 000 20 000 40 Gbit/sNorway UNINETT 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 500 2 500 10 Gbit/sPoland PIONIER 155 155 622 10 000 10 000 10 000 20 000 20 000 40 Gbit/sPortugal FCCN 180 180 1 200 1 200 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 40 GRomania RoEduNet ... ... 34 155 310 310 1 000 1 000 10 Gbit/sSlovak Rep. SANET 4 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 Whole backbone 10 GE or n x 10 GESlovenia ARNES 100 100 10 310 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 Gbit/sSpain RedIRIS 155 155 2 488 2 488 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 n x 10 Gbit/sSweden SUNET 622 1 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 SameSwitzerland SWITCH 310 ... 1 000 1 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 2 x 10 Gbit/s in parallelUnitedKingdomJANET (UK) 2 488 2 488 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 40 Gbit/sOther countriesAlgeria CERIST ... ... 155 155 310 310 34 ... ...Azerbaijan AzNet ... ... ... 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 ... ...Belarus BASNET ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 100 1 Gbit/sCroatia CARNet 155 155 155 155 310 310 1 000 1 000The bandwidth will be upgraded inthe MANs and the number of PoPswill increaseGeorgia GRENA 0.896 2.048 4.1 4 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 Gbit/s in Tbilisi, 10 Mb/s in regionsIsrael IUCC ... ... 34 45 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 000 1 Gbit/sJordan JuNET ... ... ... ... ... 1 000 2 000 ... ...Macedonia MARnet 0.5 2 2 ... 10 1 000 1 000 1 000 ...Moldova RENAM ... ... 2 ... ... 1 000 1 000 1 000In 2009, 10% of the fibre backboneconnections will be transferred to10 Gbit/s Ethernet technology; in2010, 25% of the fibre backboneconnections will be transferred to10 Gbit/s Ethernet technology57

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 3.4: Bandwidth of NRENs, Mbit/s, 2001-2008, and expected change for 2010 (continued)Country NREN 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010Other countries (continued)Montenegro MREN ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 000 1 000 ...Morocco MARWAN ... ... 2 34 45 155 155 155 ...PalestinianAuthorityRussiaPADl2 ... ... ... ... ... ... 100 ... ...RBNet/RUNNet... ... 100 ... 2 488 2 488 2 488 10 000 40 000Serbia AMRES ... 2 155 500 100 1 000 1 000 1 000Same bandwidth with more opticalPoPs and backbone distance to2 700 kmTurkey ULAKBIM 34 34 155 155 45 310 500 500 10 Gbit/sUkraine UARNet ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 10 GE n x 10 Gbit/sNote: Highlighted cells refer to speeds equal to or greater than 10 Gbit/s. In a number of cases, the information from earlier years refers tothe capacity of external connections, not to the capacity of the backbone. “...”: data not available.Source: TERENA (2008), Table 3A.4.3, p. 38, and Table 3A.5.1, p. 40.In Europe, GÉANT was launched in December 2001 to promote global research connectivity and cooperation betweenEurope, North America and Japan. The European GÉANT network established connections from the Europeanbackbone to North America (NASA and the research networks Abilene, ESnet and CA*net4, in service since January2002). It has been succeeded by GÉANT2 (Box 3.3) and will soon be upgraded to GÉANT3 offering truly global researchnetworking connectivity.Other regional networking projects are now being implemented around the world — in Latin America (ALICE), theMediterranean (EUMEDCONNECT) and the Asia-Pacific region (TEIN2), some with funding assistance from the EuropeanCommission. DANTE-Internet2-CANARIE-ESnet (DICE) is an initiative for trans-Atlantic cooperation within theframework of the GÉANT2 technical programme that enables engineers to work on advancing their research.In the Mediterranean basin, EUMEDCONNECT2 is a high-capacity IP network serving the research and education communitiesin seven countries (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia). With directlinks to GÉANT2, EUMEDCONNECT2 connects some 2 million users in 700 institutions across North Africa and the MiddleEast, enabling them to collaborate with their peers at over 300 research and education establishments in Europe.In Central Asia, the objective of the CAREN project is to establish a high-capacity research and education networkas a gateway to global research collaboration by the end of 2009. It aims to replace the Silk project’s satellite-basedconnectivity with a broadband Internet network using terrestrial fibre with a direct link to GÉANT, so as to connectresearchers, educators and students in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.The Trans-Eurasia Information Network (TEIN2 network) was established to improve collaborative research networkingbetween Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. TEIN2 currently connects over 30 million users in 4 000 researchand education institutes, with direct connectivity to GÉANT2, across ten countries in Asia and the Pacific, includingChina, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand andViet Nam, with the active participation of Australia. 13 TEIN3 was awarded EUR 18 million of funding in October 2008(EUR 12 million from the EU and EUR 6 million from Asian partners) and will run until 2011, offering higher-speed connectionsto more Asian countries, such as Laos PDR. The ORIENT project was launched in March 2006 to provide dedicatedlinks to the Chinese research networks CERNET and CSTNET, 14 connect the Shanghai Astronomical Observatoryto its European counterparts and promote the EUChinaGrid, a grid computing project uniting computing resourcesin China and Europe [Ruggieri, 2005]. India’s research network ERNET was connected to GÉANT2 in October 2006.In Latin America, the ALICE project was established in 2003 to develop an IP research network infrastructure towardsEurope. It sought to address what was then a lack of connectivity in Latin America, as well as the infrastructure ob-58

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsBox 3.3: GÉANT 2GÉANT 2 was launched in September 2004 as the high-bandwidth academic Internet serving Europe’s research and educationcommunity (as the successor to GÉANT). It is funded by the European Commission and managed by DANTE (Delivery of AdvancedNetwork Technology to Europe). It connects over 30 million researchers in a multidomain topology spanning 34 Europeancountries through 30 national research and education networks (NRENs), with links to a number of other world regions.Figure 1 Box 3.3: GÉANT 2 research network .backboneThe first links came into service in early December 2005 between Switzerland and Italy and Switzerland and Germany. There arenow two interconnection points in the United States — the original GÉANT point of presence (PoP) established in New York in 1998and a second PoP in Washington. A number of 10 Gbit/s links connect the United States and Europe — two funded by GÉANT2 anda further two funded by the American National Science Foundationand Internet2. The topology of GÉANT2 in 2005 is shown inFigure 1 Box 3.3. A direct Canada-Europe link is under discussion.Network design for GÉANT 2 has focused on maximizing operationaland service flexibility. The network architecture isbased on a combination of routed IP and switched components,with multiple 10 Gbit/s wavelengths used in the network’score. All GÉANT2’s 25 PoPs are fully equipped and inservice. Furthermore, 43 of the network’s 44 routes are fullyinstalled and operational, with one dark fibre route still underpreparation. For the GÉANT+ service, all NRENs subscribing toGÉANT+ have prepaid quotas of 10 Gbit/s of GÉANT+ capacity.In practice, this means that up to 9 Gbit/s ethernet servicescan be requested at short notice by any combination of NRENsin GÉANT2’s fibre cloud. Alternatively, full-capacity 10 Gbit/swavelengths can also be ordered between any two fibre-cloudGÉANT2 PoPs.GÉANT2 participants covered by dark fibre (and thus able toreceive point-to-point services) are considered as being “withinthe GÉANT2 fibre cloud.” At present, these include:ACOnet (Austria); ARNES (Slovenia); BELNET (Belgium); CAR-Net (Croatia); CESNET (Czech Rep.); DFN (Germany); HEAnet(Ireland); NIIF (Hungary); NORDUnet (Nordic region); PSNC(Poland — currently GÉANT+ service only); RedIRIS (Spain);RENATER (France); SANET (Slovakia); SURFnet (Netherlands);SWITCH (Switzerland); and UKERNA (UK).Source: www.GEANT2.net and CERN Computer Centre.jectives of the European Commission’s @LIS programme. It has established the RedCLARA network connecting newand existing Latin American NRENs in a ring and spur topology, with an onward connection to GÉANT2 in Europe at622 Mbit/s. ALICE has had an important catalytic effect in promoting national networks across Latin America. Severalcountries which had no centralized research connectivity have established NRENs in order to connect with ALICE.Other countries (e.g. Chile and Cuba) have expanded their existing networks. For those countries where researchnetworking was already well-developed (e.g. Brazil and Mexico), researchers are now more involved with their collaboratorsin Europe.Today, the world’s largest computing grid and one of the largest data-processing networks in the world has beenestablished at CERN (Box 3.4). The computing power needed to deal with the immense amounts of data generatedby the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is far beyond CERN’s computing capacity, and a special Worldwide LHC ComputingGrid (WLCG) has been established at CERN to store, process and analyse data.59

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 3.4: A look to the future: the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) at CERNThe Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) is a global collaboration linking grid infrastructures and computer centres worldwidein order to distribute, store and analyse the immense amounts of data generated by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)project at CERN in Geneva. It consists of massive, multipetabyte storage systems and computing clusters with thousands ofnodes connected by high-speed networks. It uses specialized tools to manage the vast data storage systems needed for LHCdata, and to allow applications to access the data for simulation and analysis.Today, WLCG combines the computing resources of more than 100 000 processors from over 170 sites in 34 countries, producinga massive distributed computing infrastructure that provides over 8 000 physicists around the world with near real-timeaccess to LHC data and the power to process it. WLCG consists of three layers or “tiers:”• Tier-0 is the CERN Computing Centre. All data from the LHC pass through this central hub, but it provides less than20 per cent of the total computing capacity. CERN is connected to the other major tiers and grid services using dedicated10Gbit/s optical wide-area links.• Tier-1 comprises eleven sites located in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, Spain,Taiwan (China), the United Kingdom and the United States. These sites provide distribution networks, processing of rawdata, data analysis and storage facilities.• Tier-2 comprises around 160 sites around the world. Altogether, these sites provide approximately half the capacityneeded to process LHC data.Exchanging data between WLCG centres is managed by the Grid File Transfer Service developed by the Enabling Grids for E-sciencE (EGEE) project for transferring large volumes of data across distributed computing grids securely and reliably. It hasbeen tailored to support the special needs of grid computing, including authentication and confidentiality features, reliabilityand fault tolerance, and third party and file transfer.Source: CERN Computer Centre.Conclusions and recommendationsMost research centres and universities are connected to the Internet, often with a broadband connection. Many universitiesand research institutes are also connected to the NREN, where one exists. By early 2010, around 62 per centof countries had an NREN, ranging from 100 and 88 per cent of countries in CIS and Europe, respectively, to 33 percent of countries in Africa.Connecting NRENs to regional and international networks is essential for connecting scientific and research institutionsto the high-bandwidth networks needed for scientific research. Such networks promote international collaborationand partnerships for building an advanced information society. In order to promote the expansion of NRENs,governments in both developed and developing countries could consider the following policy recommendations toconnect scientific and research centres to advanced ICT networks, thus attaining Target 3:• National innovation system: Governments and policy-makers should work with research and education institutionsto ensure that the NREN is fully embedded within their overall national innovation system and serves theneeds of the local research community. NRENs and international collaborative research networks are not justabout connectivity, but must enable collaborative research for their full benefits to be realized (in developingresearch skills and advanced human capital). Related issues such as the “brain drain” or loss of expertise abroadshould also be addressed as part of policy for strengthening the national innovation system and the NREN.• National consultations: Governments could consider conducting consultations with the NREN and associatedinstitutions in order to review challenges and bottlenecks to boosting network deployment and connectivity.These could include the regulation of international gateways, review of international routing options, the liberalizationof cheaper or efficient communication services such as Skype and VoIP and/or schemes and consortiafor boosting fibre backbone access. The outcome of these consultations should inform national policies, which60

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsshould focus on the roll-out and growth of NRENs in developing countries, and enhance their bandwidth capacities.• Plan of priorities for connecting institutions: Policy-makers should also consider prioritizing the research institutesto be connected to the NREN, based on their size and the types of research performed there. Partnershipsand connection to existing regional and global networks should be explored (as along the lines of ALICE’sonward connection to GÉANT2 in Europe). Connectivity with at least two other regions is advisable in termsof back-up routes and supporting connectivity. The expansion of collaborative research networks generallyprogresses fastest where there are strong academic research links between different institutions in similarfields of research.• Public-private partnerships (PPPs): Establishing PPPs with incumbent telecommunication operators and newISPs could be another important way of enhancing infrastructure and helping integrate international researchnetwork connectivity with existing incumbents’ networks.Developing countries can consider formalizing their international research links and collaborative research initiatives.Historically, research contacts are often personal or institutional, but these collaborations could be extended andplaced on an official footing so as to include formal projects extending linkages to NRENs. Developing countries mayalso need to consider issues of routing and transit connectivity and regional networks, in order to ensure linkages andstable back-up capacity to large-capacity networks in Europe, Asia and North America and to avoid situations such asthe Egyptian Internet blackout in January 2008.While academic and research networks are being rolled out at an accelerating pace, quantifiable statistical measurementof Target 3 in terms of scientific and research institutions may prove difficult for some countries. For eachcountry, it is necessary to determine the national set of scientific and research centres (including some universities,but most likely not all) on the basis of UNESCO definitions. The basic Internet access connectivity of these institutions,in particular universities, is likely to be high (see also the chapter on Target 2), especially since universities have beenclosely connected with the Internet since its inception.WSIS Action Line C7 refers to affordable and high-speed Internet access and, in the future information society, connectivityfor scientific and research purposes refers to academic NRENs that are increasingly being used for collaborativeresearch. The statistical evaluation of the roll-out of these networks is fraught with difficulty, most notably inassigning sovereignty to an international network and in avoiding double-counting of bandwidth on routes betweencountries. Furthermore, a network’s PoPs in a country and the total bandwidth available to a country are likely todepend on the topology chosen for the network. Virtually all world regions now enjoy the benefits of these advancedresearch and education networks, but there remains a need to integrate regional networks so as to ensure that developingcountries can also benefit by participating in and contributing to the pioneering developments in scientificand academic research that characterize the information society.61

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsNotes1This chapter was co-authored by Phillippa Biggs and Desirée van Welsum of ITU, who gratefully acknowledge review and feedback fromSusan Teltscher and other colleagues of the ITU Statistics Division.2See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c7.3Scientific and technical research is defined as including “fundamental research, applied research (in such fields as agriculture, medicine,industrial chemistry etc.) and development work leading to new devices, products or processes” — UNESCO’s “Questionnaire on Statisticsof Science and Technology,” available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0017/001781/178114eb.pdf. It includes research related toeconomics or sociology, but excludes routine testing, censuses and market studies. For example, this means that national statistics officesare excluded from counts of research institutions for routine assessments, but could be included if the definition of research institutionsfocuses on research into economic or social problems.4The survey “Main Trends of Inquiry in the Field of Natural Sciences” (UN and UNESCO, Paris 1961, UNESCO/NS/ROU/14), available at:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001542/154284eb.pdf.5The International Standard Classification of Education (“ISCED 1997”) was approved by the 29th UNESCO General Conference in November1997. ISCED 1997 covers two main cross-classification variables (levels and fields of education) and provides definitions for primary,secondary and tertiary education institutes.6DANTE (Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe) plans, builds and operates networks for research and education. It isowned by European NRENs and works in partnership with them and the European Commission.7http://www.dante.net/server/show/nav.00100e.8Given recent developments in collaborative research, the current classification of scientific and technical institutions may be increasinglyoutdated and in need of revision. The classification and number of public scientific and research centres is not straightforward to measure.Indeed, certain types of institutions (for example vocational training institutes, or institutions that have public-private partnershipsor other types of collaboration) may need to be included additionally. It is doubtful that all universities should be included.9http://www.geant2.net/server/show/conWebDoc.1017.10http://www.geant2.net/server/show/conWebDoc.1010.11http://www.dante.net/server/show/nav.00100e.12TERENA refers to “core usable backbone capacity” as the typical core capacity of the linked nodes in the core. Some networks do nothave a core backbone, for example, because they have a star topology. In those cases, TERENA asked for the maximum capacity into thecentral node of the network. Some NRENs have dark fibre with a very high theoretical capacity — in these cases, TERENA asked for theusable IP capacity.13http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1581&format=HTML&aged=0&language-EN&guiLanguage=en.14http://www.dante.net/server/show/nav.1678&?PHPSESSID=de99b27200a4448c6029ada4c6747088.62

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsReferencesOSILAC (2007), Monitoring eLAC2007: Progress and current state of development of Latin American and Caribbeaninformation societies, ECLAC, Santiago.TERENA (2008), TERENA Compendium 2008: http:www.terena.org/activities/compendium.TERENA (2009), TERENA Compendium 2009: http:www.terena.org/activities/compendium.Ruggieri, F. (2005), “GRID projects for the Mediterranean and China,” presentation given at the GARR Conference2005, Pisa, 11 May 2005: http://www.garr.it/conf_05/slides/f_ruggieri-med_china_grid.pdf.63

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsAnnex 3.1: List of national research and education networks (NRENs)• AFRENA (Afghanistan)• ANA (Albania)• CERIST and CNTI (Algeria)• Australian Academic and Research Network, AARNet (Australia) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• Red (Argentina)• ARENA (Armenia)• AZNET (Azerbaijan)• ACOnet (Austria)• BDREN (Bangladesh)• Belnet (Belgium)• BASNET (Belarus)• RUB (Bhutan)• BOLNET (Bolivia)• BIHARNET (Bosnia and Herzegovina)• RNP (Brazil)• Brunet (Brunei Darussalam)• BREN (Bulgaria)• ITC (Cambodia)• Cameroonian NRET (Cameroon)• CANARIE, CA*Net (Canada)• REUNA (Chile)• CERNET and CSTNET (China) — connected to TEIN2 network.• RENATA (Colombia)• eb@le (Democratic Republic of the Congo)• CR2Net (Costa Rica)• CARNet (Croatia)• RedUNIV (Cuba)• CYNET (Cyprus)• CESNET (Czech Republic)• Forskningsnettet (Denmark)• CEDIA (Ecuador)• EUN (Egypt) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.• RAICES (El Salvador)• EENet (Estonia)• FUNET (Finland)• RENATER (France)• DFN (Germany)• GRENA (Georgia)• GARNET (Ghana)• GRNET (Greece) — Greek Research & Technology Network.• RAGIE (Guatemala)• UNITEC (Honduras)• HARNET (Hong Kong, China) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• NIIF and HUNGARNET (Hungary)• RHnet (Iceland)• ERNET (India)• INHERENT — Indonesia Higher Education & Research Network NREN — ITB (Indonesia) connected to TEIN2 andTEIN3 networks.• Iranet/IPM (Islamic Republic of Iran)• HEAnet (Ireland)• IUCC (Israel)• Consortium GARR (Italy). Also INFN — Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy).• SINET (Japan) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• UniCo/JUNet, NITC (Jordan) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.64

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTs• KazRENA (Kazakhstan) — connected to CAREN.• KOREN and KREONET (Republic of Korea) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• KENET (Kenya)• KRENA-AKNET (Kyrgyzstan) — connected to CAREN.• LERNET (Laos PDR) to be connected to TEIN3 in 2011.• SigmaNet (Latvia)• CNRS (Lebanon)• LITNET (Lithuania)• RESTENA (Luxembourg)• MALICO/MAREN (Malawi)• MYREN (Malaysia) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• University of Malta CSC (Malta)• CUDI (Mexico)• RENAM (Moldova)• MREN (Montenegro)• NARWAN (Morocco) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.• MoRENet (Mozambique)• NAMREN (Namibia)• Nepal Research and Education Network (Nepal)• SURFnet (Netherlands)• KIWI Advanced Research and Education Network (KAREN) and (REANNZ) New Zealand Research and EducationNetwork (New Zealand)• RENIA (Nicaragua)• NgNER (Nigeria)• UNINETT (Norway)• GCC and PAD12 (Palestinian Authority) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.• PERN (Pakistan)• RedCyT (Panama)• PNGARNet (Papua New Guinea)• Arandu (Paraguay)• RAAP (Peru)• PREGINET (Philippines) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• PIONIER (PCSS) (Poland — currently GÉANT+ service only).• FCCN (Portugal)• Qatar Foundation (Qatar)• RNC / RoEduNet (Romania)• RUNNet/RBNet — Russian University Network — and FREEnet (Russian Federation).• RwEdNet (Rwanda)• KAUST (Saudi Arabia)• RENER (Senegal)• AMRES (Serbia)• SingAREN (Singapore) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• SANET (Slovakia)• ARNES (Slovenia)• TENET and SANReN (South Africa)• RedIRIS or RED.ES (Spain)• Lanka Education & Research Network LEARN (Sri Lanka)• SUIN Sudanese Universities Information Network SUIN (Sudan)• SUNET (Sweden)• SWITCH (Switzerland)• SHERN and HIAST (Syria) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.• TWAREN and ASGC (Taiwan, China)• TERNET (Tanzania)• TARENA (Tajikistan) — planned to be connected to CAREN.• MARNET (TFYR Macedonia)• ThaiREN and Uninet (Thailand) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• TURENA (Turkmenistan) — planned to be connected to CAREN.65

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• RNRST (Tunisia) — connected to EUMEDCONNECT2.• ULAKBIM (Turkey)• RENU (Uganda)• UARNet, URAN and UNREN (Ukraine)• UKERNA and JANET (JANET(UK)) (United Kingdom) — connected to GÉANT2;• United States:• Internet2 (UCAID) — de facto NREN of the United States• National LambdaRail (NLR) — United States NREN• CalREN — Californian NREN operated by CENIC• vBNS• RAU (Uruguay)• UzSciNet (Uzbekistan) — planned to be connected to CAREN.• REACCIUN (Venezuela)• VINAREN (Viet Nam) — connected to TEIN2 and TEIN3 networks.• ZAMREN (Zambia)Regional or NREN consortia:• Internet2 US Research and Education Network• Asia Pacific Advanced Network Consortium — Asia-Pacific Advanced Network• TERENA — Trans-European Research and Education Networking Association (Association of European NRENs)— see the Terena Compendium• DANTE — runs GÉANT2 backbone network on behalf of European NRENs• CLARA — Cooperación Latino Americana de Redes Avanzadas (Association of Latin American NRENs) that runsthe RedCLARA backbone network• NORDUnet — Nordic backbone networkSource: ITU.66

Target 3: Connect scientific and research centres with ICTsAnnex 3.2: Extract from the TERENA Compendium 2009 questionnaireNetwork & connectivity servicesSection B: SERVICESIn this section, please provide information about the entire network that is managed by your organisation, excludinglinks outside your national territory.B.1 What is the number of PoPs on your network? (A PoP is defined here as a point on the NREN backbone whichcan connect client networks or aggregations of client networks such as MANs, or external networks.)B.2 What is the number of places where you undertake core networking routing?B.3 What is the number of managed sites on your network? (i.e. the number of sites where youmanage routing orswitching equipment)B.4 At how many places do you offer optical PoPs?B.5 How many of these optical POPs also provide L3 routing?B.6 How many circuits (that carry production traffic) do you manage?B.7 What is the total kilometric length of dark fibre installed on your network?(This question replaces the previous question asking for an estimate of bandwidth*distance which NRENshave found increasingly difficult to answer.)B.8 What is the current typical core usable backbone capacity on your network?B.9 Please provide a list of the operational external IP connections you had at the end of January 2009 (usablelinks excluding backup links):External Network IP ConnectionsUsable capacity (Mbit/s)Direct to GÉANTIndirectly to GÉANTvia the SEEREN or EUMEDCONNECT project or another NREN(please specify each connection — adding as many lines as needed)Direct to NORDUnetDirect to other research locations(e.g. other NRENs, CERN, Starlight, Abilene)(please specify each connection — adding as many lines as needed)Direct connections to the Commercial Internetexcluding Internet Exchanges(please specify each connection — adding as many lines as needed)Peerings, connections to Internet Exchanges(please specify each peering — adding as many lines as needed)Other — Please specify typeTotal:67

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsAnnex 3.3: Status of NRENs in Latin America, 2007CountyName ofnetworkYear .createdType of coordinatingorganizationArgentina InnovaRed 2006 ... 52 55Bolivia BOLNET 1990Brazil RNP 1989Colombia RENATA 2007Costa Rica CR2Net 2002Cuba REDUNIV 2005Chile REUNA 1986Ecuador CEDIA 2002El Salvador RAICES 2003Guatemala RAGIE ...Public educationorganization (selffinanced)Mixed non-profitorganizationCurrently beingorganized as aprivate nonprofitorganizationGovernmentalorganization (Ministryof Scienceand Technology)Governmentalorganization(Ministry of HigherEducation)Self-financingprivate non-profitorganizationGovernmentalorganization (Ministryof Educationand Culture)Self-financingprivate non-profitorganizationNon-profit civicorganizationWhetherNumber ofconnected tomembersCharacteristics of membersRedCLARA2004 2007 2004 200742 higher education institutions, 8 researchYes Yesorganizations, 5 government agencies20 ... In process of reorganization via ADSIB No No369 15675 57... 921 2219 1738 248 9... 9Honduras RHUTA 2005 ... ... ...Mexico CUDI 1999Nicaragua RENIA 2005Panama REDCYT 2002ParaguayARANDU*Not applicablePeru RAAP 2003Uruguay RAU 1990Venezuela REACCIUN 1994Non-profit civicorganizationNon-profit civicorganizationNon-profit educationalorganizationNon-profit educationalorganizationNon-profit civicorganizationNon-profit highereducation institutionNon-profit civicorganization (Ministryof Scienceand Technology)... 80... 810 10100 higher education institutions, 35 researchorganizations, 8 development organizations, 2hospitals, 6 governmental agencies,6 NGOs54 higher-education and research institutions,and3 government agencies5 higher education institutions, 2 researchorganizations and 2 government agencies17 higher education institutions, 5 researchorganizations15 higher-education institutions, 1 researchcentre and CONICYT17 higher-education institutions, 3 researchorganizations, 3 gov. agencies, 1 privatesectororganization8 higher education institutions, 1 researchorganization7 higher education institutions, 2 privatesectororganizationsPublic and private universities, 1 privateorganization, 1 government agency37 higher-education institutions, 37 researchorganizations, 4 private organizations, 2international organizations7 higher-education institutions, 1 privatesectororganization, 1 NGO7 higher-education institutions, 1 researchorganization, 2 government agenciesYesNoNoNoYesNoNoNoNotapplic.YesNotapplic.22 ... No physical network. The project is inactive. No No... 716 1673 675 higher-education institutions, 2 researchorganizations4 higher-education institutions, 6 researchorganizations, 4 government agencies, 1international organization, 1 private-sectororganization34 higher-education institutions, 2 researchorganizations, 7 academic institutions, 5 foundations,19 government agenciesYesYesYesNoNoYesYesYesYesNoYesNoYes... YesNoYesYesYesNote: *Data as of July 2003. “...”: data/information not available.Source: OSILAC (2007).68

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsTarget 4: Connect public libraries, culturalcentres, museums, post offices and .archives with ICTs 1IntroductionTarget 4 deals with highly knowledge- and information-intensive institutions, such as libraries, museums and archives.Therefore, it fits neatly into the overall WSIS objective, namely: “to build an inclusive information society; toput the potential of knowledge and ICTs at the service of development; to promote the use of information and knowledgefor the achievement of internationally agreed development goals.” 2However, the target encompasses several “subtargets,” covering aspects related to both access (institutions providingaccess to the Internet) and content (institutions with websites, providing access to information, and contributingto the preservation of cultural heritage). Because of this dual aspect of providing Internet access and generatingcontent online, it is especially relevant for the following WSIS action lines:• Action Line С2 (Information and communication infrastructure), specifically:c) In the context of national e-strategies, provide and improve ICT connectivity for all schools, universities, healthinstitutions, libraries, post offices, community centres, museums and other institutions accessible to the public,in line with the indicative targets. 3• Action Line C3 (Access to information and knowledge), specifically:h) Support the creation and development of a digital public library and archive services, adapted to the informationsociety, including reviewing national library strategies and legislation, developing a global understandingof the need for “hybrid libraries,” and fostering worldwide cooperation between libraries.i) Encourage initiatives to facilitate access, including free and affordable access to open access journals andbooks, and open archives for scientific information. 469

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• Action Line C8 (Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content), specifically:b) Develop national policies and laws to ensure that libraries, archives, museums and other cultural institutionscan play their full role of content — including traditional knowledge — providers in the information society,more particularly by providing continued access to recorded information.c) Support efforts to develop and use ICTs for the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, keeping it accessibleas a living part of today’s culture. This includes developing systems for ensuring continued access toarchived digital information and multimedia content in digital repositories, and support archives, cultural collectionsand libraries as the memory of humankind.e) Support local content development, translation and adaptation, digital archives, and diverse forms of digital andtraditional media by local authorities. These activities can also strengthen local and indigenous communities. 5It is also related to Target 1 insofar as some of the institutions concerned, notably libraries, cultural centres and postoffices, can also serve to provide public Internet access; and to Target 9, as they contribute to promoting the developmentof online (local) content in local languages.Last but not least, Action line C4 (Capacity building) is an important enabler in this context, especially in regard to theneed for training programmes for the use of ICTs by information professionals, who will include archivists, librarians,museum professionals and postal workers. 6Even though the institutions covered by these subtargets have some points in common in that they all tend to providehighly information- and knowledge-intensive services, they are also quite different in other ways, in terms of thespecific purpose they serve and the role they can play in contributing to providing Internet access or online content.Therefore, this chapter will deal with each of the five subtargets separately, proposing indicators and monitoring andevaluating each subtarget individually, before wrapping up with an overall conclusion.Public librariesThe information society is about “information,” so it is logical that traditional repositories of tangible information— libraries — should be a key player. Public libraries provide a venue for the community to read and learn and, likethe community access points referred to in Target 1, are ideally positioned to extend their mission by also providingInternet access for people without easy or affordable access. One study found that 78 per cent of public libraries inthe United States are the sole location providing free access to computers and the Internet in their communities. 7This community connectivity aspect of libraries is emphasized in the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action. Libraries are specificallyreferenced in Action Line C2 as institutions to be provided with connectivity as part of the national e-strategy.They are also important in several ways in the context of Action Line C3. First, they are repositories of informationand knowledge with their collections of books, journals and other items, so connecting libraries is therefore of directrelevance, since it facilitates access to the information and knowledge they contain. Second, they are also cited ascandidates for housing community public access points. Finally, the action line specifically encourages the developmentof a digital public library (and archives, see later in this chapter) and online access to journals and books. 8Libraries around the world have rich collections of historical documents that are an important source of cultural andlinguistic diversity and identity, which are thus highly relevant to Action Line C8, and strongly related to WSIS Target 9which includes encouraging the development of local content. Libraries promote cultural diversity, linguistic diversityand local content given that their collections feature national works in the language of the country.It is imperative for libraries to digitize and document their holdings and create websites to provide online access tothis information for the global community. There are various aspects to library digitization, including digital books,the digitization of key national heritage documents and the availability of a digital or electronic card catalogue. Severalinitiatives to digitize libraries are described in Box 4.1.Measuring the subtarget — Proposed indicatorsAccording to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS), a library is an “Organization, or part of an organization, themain aims of which are to build and maintain a collection and to facilitate the use of such information resources and70

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsBox 4.1: Digital librariesThere are a number of significant initiatives to improve the digital offerings of libraries and enhance their website presence.The European Library groups 48 national libraries across the region through an online portal (www.theeuropeanlibrary.org).Its vision is the “provision of equal access to promote worldwide understanding of the richness and diversity of Europeanlearning and culture.” 9 Key sections are available in the 35 languages of the participating libraries, with other pages in English,French and German. In addition to coordinating multilingual aspects, participants are also working on standardizing and integratingcard catalogues.The library includes items that have been digitized including books, journals, photographs and paintings; sound and movie filesand “born digital” files that were originally created in a digital format like e-books. The quality of the site is ensured throughthe expertise of the professional national librarian staff.Among the many features of the European Library is the ability to quickly identify and link to collections and exhibitions acrossall libraries using various search criteria. For example, one can link to a special digital exhibit at the National Library of Swedenabout Dag Hammarskjöld, a Swedish diplomat and second Secretary-General of the United Nations. The multimedia exhibitfeatures photographs, key documents such as newspaper articles and television interviews structured across key periods inhis life. The National Library of Sweden is well advanced with digitization in order “to make its collections available to citizensthroughout all of Sweden via the Internet.” 10 One example is the “Codex Gigas” (Devil’s Bible), supposedly the largest (by size)surviving European manuscript. The National Library website features digitized pages of every page of the book as well asdocumentation about the book’s history, comments about the text, a bibliography and a glossary. The Internet is the only waythe public at large can see the Codex Gigas since due to its age and condition it is stored in a climate-controlled room and notavailable for display.The European Commission, which has provided funding for the European Library, sees it as a flagship project for digital accessto Europe’s heritage, using ICTs to “...enable you to tap into Europe’s collective memory with a click of your mouse.” 11The World Digital Library (WDL) provides an example of using information technology to share the world’s historical heritagein digitized format over the Internet. The concept was proposed by U.S. Librarian of Congress James H. Billington in 2006.The Library of Congress worked with UNESCO and other libraries (Bibliotheca Alexandrina, the National Library of Brazil, theNational Library and Archives of Egypt, the National Library of Russia, and the Russian State Library) in a consultative processalong with the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) and around 40 countries, in order to develop a prototype.A WDL Experts Meeting held in 2006 12 noted problems to be overcome: “... little cultural content was being digitized in manycountries and that developing countries in particular lacked the capacity to digitize and display their cultural treasures. Existingwebsites often had poorly developed search and display functions. Multilingual access was not well developed. Many websitesmaintained by cultural institutions (including libraries) were difficult to use and, in many cases, failed to appeal to users, particularlyyoung users.”Features of WDL include a user interface in seven languages and extensive information about the works. The project alsoworked with digitization centres in Brazil, Egypt, Iraq and Russia to convert holdings to digital format. WDL was launched inApril 2009 and is available at: http://www.wdl.org.Another initiative to digitize books is Google’s “Google Books,” launched in October 2004, which scans books and makes themavailable online. If a book exists in Google’s database that matches a user’s search query, the results are returned. If the bookis not subject to copyright or the copyright has expired, the user can view the full text. Otherwise, there are links to where theuser can purchase it from. Currently, some seven million 13 titles are available through Google Books.Google has faced thorny copyright issues with its book service. One problem is knowing when the copyright has expired, sincethis can vary by country. Google has also been sued by publishers and authors over perceived copyright violations. However,a settlement has been reached that should make millions of additional books available online, 14 helping progress towards thequest to create “...the digital ... library of the future, making humanity’s entire body of knowledge accessible to everyone.” 1571

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsfacilities as are required to meet the informational, research, educational, cultural or recreational needs of its users;these are the basic requirements for a library and do not exclude any additional resources and services incidental toits main purpose.”The aims include facilitating the use of information resources to meet the needs of users. In that regard, UIS defineselectronic services of libraries as: “Electronic library services, which are either supplied from local servers or accessiblevia networks, include online catalogues, the library website, electronic collection, electronic document delivery (mediated),electronic reference service, user training on electronic services and Internet access offered via the library.”The target states the aim as being to “connect libraries.” This could mean equipping libraries themselves with Internetaccess. However, there are two further aspects to consider. One is providing users with Internet access atlibraries, as a public Internet access point (PIAP). The second would be making library content available online. Accomplishingthe latter would then permit access to computerized collection catalogues, digital documents and otheronline library services. Thus, the following indicators are proposed:1. Percentage of public libraries with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Percentage of public libraries providing users with Internet access3. Percentage of public libraries with a website.These indicators have been used by UIS in a pilot survey on libraries for Latin America and the Caribbean. 16 Out ofthe 22 indicators in the survey covering various aspects of libraries (i.e. not just ICTs), the percentage of librariesproviding Internet access had the highest fulfilment rate and the percentage of libraries with a website had the sixthhighest. These indicators are emphasized because of their public-service orientation, but libraries equally need tocomputerize their own internal workings by providing staff with computers and computer training, and using ICTsto inventory and catalogue their collections. In fact, it is likely that libraries providing Internet access and having awebsite will have a certain level of ICT use and competencies to apply to their internal operations. It might also beuseful to ascertain other details about a library’s public ICT services, such as whether computers or wireless Internetaccess are available for library users.There is a lack of comprehensive data coverage on the overall number of public libraries in countries, let alone thenumber with Internet access or websites. The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) and the Committeeon Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) compile a biennial yearbook that contains dataon the number of libraries in a country along with what proportion of libraries offer Internet access, in broad ranges. 17The 2007 edition features data for 115 countries. Apart from the limitation of not covering all United Nations MemberStates, the statistical data are presented in an aggregated form. Country data can be obtained from the text ofthe individual country reports, but the data on Internet access availability are presented in quintiles rather than theexact percentage of libraries. There are also no data on the proportion of libraries with a website. Nevertheless, thepublication is a valuable starting point for measuring public-library connectivity.One fundamental problem with monitoring the subtarget is defining the universe of public libraries. In some countries,public libraries are centrally administered while in others the library system is decentralized. It is not clearwhether surveys are capturing all of the relevant public-library units and whether branches and mobile units arebeing included. For example, in the UIS data for Latin America and the Caribbean, there were only 27 public librariesreported for Argentina compared to 167 for Uruguay, a much smaller country. 18A related issue to the uncertainty surrounding the number of public libraries is measuring the number of publiclibraries with a website. In some countries, there is a network of public branches that are administered by a centrallibrary. While the central library may have a website, the branches might not. Therefore, the percentage of librarieswith a website can be misleading, since it might be sufficient for the main branch to be online. On the other hand,72

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTseach individual library having a website would have advantages in terms of the potential ability to offer a full suite ofonline services about information relevant to that particular library.A few countries publish statistics on public-library connectivity. For example, Australia measures the number of Internetworkstations per public library, the percentage of libraries with a website and the percentage with their catalogueson the web. 19 The U.S. National Centre for Education Statistics publishes a report that includes the percentageof public libraries providing access to the Internet and the number of Internet terminals in public libraries for publicuse per inhabitant and per library. 20The European Union includes the availability of electronic card catalogues in public libraries as one of the 20 policyindicators comprising its e-government indicator. The percentage of public libraries with a website could be a proxyfor this indicator, because it would then be possible to access the catalogue online.In the future it might be useful to obtain more detailed information about library ICT connectivity aspects such as thenumber of terminals with Internet access available or the number of users of library Internet services. 21Status of the subtargetThere is no comprehensive international database on global library connectivity presented in a format that adequatelysuits monitoring of the target. ITU carried out an ad-hoc survey in 2009 in the context of tracking the WSIStargets. It included questions on access to the Internet for public libraries, by type of access, and whether librarieshad a website. The results point to large differences across countries (Table 4.1), reflecting at least in part some ofthe measurement challenges described above.The number of libraries varies widely, reflecting country size and population differences, as well as difficulties relatedto the measurement unit mentioned above (central library, branches, etc.). Thus, the figure ranges from over 7 000 inMexico and over 5 000 in Czech Republic and Brazil, to just 4, 3 and 2 libraries in Djibouti, Lesotho and Bhutan, respectively.Not all of these have access to the Internet, though. For example, only 32 per cent of the reported 7 283 librariesin Mexico have access to the Internet, 23 per cent with a broadband connection. There is only one library with awebsite. In Djibouti, three of the four libraries have access to the Internet, although each with a broadband connection,and two have a website. Overall, connectivity is high in developed countries. Furthermore, those libraries withaccess to the Internet tend to have broadband access. The percentage of libraries with a website can be somewhatmisleading since, as mentioned above, there may be a single website covering a network of libraries and/or branches.The IFLA/FAIFE data, though not complete in terms of coverage and with limitations in terms of data clarity, providesome indication of the recent status of the provision of public Internet access in libraries (Table 4.2). According to thedata, only about a third of the respondent countries reported that at least 80 per cent of their public libraries offeredInternet access, whereas around 40 per cent of the respondent countries reported that less than 20 per cent of theirpublic libraries offered Internet access. No region reported that at least 80 per cent of all public libraries provided Internetaccess. The lowest numbers reported were for Africa, where 71 per cent of the respondent countries reportedthat less than 20 per cent of public libraries offered Internet access.The UIS survey provides fairly comprehensive coverage for the Latin America and Caribbean region (Table 4.3).The number of public libraries per 1 000 inhabitants ranges from 0.001 to 0.228. There is a wide range of libraryconnectivity achievement in the region. It is easier to provide Internet access to only a few libraries, so most ofthe small island states in the Caribbean have a relatively high ratio of libraries providing Internet access. Fewerdata were available for public libraries with a website. Where data are available for this indicator, the figuretends to be lower than for libraries providing Internet access. This may be due to the structural issue alludedto above, i.e. branches of main libraries where only the main branch has a website. Even though some of theconnectivity rates are fairly low, there are a number of initiatives in place in all parts of the world to connectlibraries (Box 4.2).73

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 4.1: Public libraries with access to the Internet, by type of access, and with a website, by country, 2009*CountryNumber ofpublic .librariesNumberof publiclibraries withaccess to theInternet (anytype of connection)% of publiclibraries withaccess to theInternet (anytype of connection)Numberof publiclibraries withaccess tothe Internet(broadbandonly)% of publiclibraries withaccess tothe Internet(broadbandonly)Number ofpublic .libraries .with a .website% of publiclibraries witha websiteAlbania 50 20 40 20 40 3 6Andorra 9 8 89 8 89 9 100Bhutan 2 2 100 ... ... 1 50Bolivia 2134 40 2 4 0 20 1Bosnia and Herzegovina 790 340 43 201 25 157 20Botswana 27 4 15 4 15 ... ...Brazil 5232 ... ... ... ... ... ...Brunei 9 ... ... ... ... 1 11Bulgaria 47 47 100 ... ... ... ...Croatia 202 194 96 ... ... 197 98Czech Republic 5438 ... ... ... ... 1637 30Denmark 97 97 100 97 100 97 100Djibouti 4 3 75 3 75 2 50Egypt 2256 676 30 ... ... ... ...Finland 1660 1660 100 ... ... ... ...Haiti 195 ... ... ... ... ... ...Hungary 2073 1521 73 1391 67 601 29Iraq 470 ... ... ... ... ... ...Korea (Rep.) 626 626 100 626 100 ... ...Latvia 874 874 100 874 100 ... ...Lesotho 3 3 100 1 33 0 0Lithuania 1347 1021 76 598 44 144 11Malta 56 8 14 2 4 ... ...Mexico 7283 2335 32 1650 23 1 0.01New Zealand 317 ... ... ... ... ... ...Paraguay 37 5 14 5 14 3 8Singapore 22 22 100 22 100 22 100St. Lucia 18 12 67 12 67 0 0St. Vincent and the Grenadines 23 10 43 10 43 1 4Sweden 1286 1286 100 ... ... 290 23Thailand 1393 ... ... ... ... ... ...Turkey 1150 673 59 673 59 33 3United Kingdom 3500 3500 100 3500 100 ... ...Note: *Or latest available year. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.74

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsTable 4.2: Percentage of public libraries offering Internet access, by region, 2007CountriesAfrica Asia Europe% Countries% Countries% CountriesLatin America &.Caribbean% CountriesNorth America Oceania Total% Countries% Countries81-100% 2 7.1 4 20 16 47.1 6 27.3 2 66.7 4 50 34 29.661-80% 1 3.6 1 5 3 8.8 4 18.2 0 0 0 0 9 7.841-60% 2 7.1 4 20 8 23.5 1 4.5 0 0 1 12.5 16 13.921-40% 3 10.7 3 15 1 2.9 3 13.6 1 33.3 0 0 11 9.6≤20% 20 71.4 8 40 6 17.6 8 36.4 0 0 3 37.5 45 39.1Total 28 100 20 100 34 100 22 100 3 100 8 100 115 100%Note: % refers to the percentage of countries responding. For example, in two African countries, between 81 and 100 per cent of publiclibraries offer Internet access. These two countries make up 7.1 per cent of the African countries that replied to the survey.Source: IFLA/FAIFE.Table 4.3: Percentage of public libraries with Internet access for users, and websites, 2006 or latest, LatinAmerica and the CaribbeanCountry Number of public libraries % of public libraries offeringInternet access to users% of public libraries with .websitesAntigua and Barbuda 1 100 100Argentina 27 51.9 51.9Bahamas 32 81.3 9.4Brazil 4 801 9.3 ...British Virgin Islands 5 40 20Chile 428 2.3 1.4Colombia 1 595 15.2 2Costa Rica 57 66.7 ...Dominica 4 50 ...Dominican Republic 398 ... ...El Salvador 16 25 ...Guyana 21 28.6 4.8Honduras 116 6.9 ...Jamaica 615 14.8 14.8Mexico 7 210 37.1 ...Montserrat 1 100 ...Netherlands Antilles 1 100 100Peru 826 ... ...St. Kitts and Nevis 3 100 ...St. Lucia 18 ... ...St. Vincent & the Grenadines 20 ... 5Suriname 7 14.3 ...Trinidad and Tobago 23 100 8.7Uruguay 167 19.2 ...Venezuela 728 100 0.1Percentage of each indicatoravailability for all countries100% 84% 48%Note: “...”: data not available.Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.75

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 4.2: Examples of initiatives to connect librariesA number of countries have made progress in connecting their public libraries with ICTs. Some examples are discussed below,including the United States, which has used universal service funds to extend connectivity to public libraries; Venezuela,where public libraries are an important element of the country’s public Internet access programme; Singapore, which hasimplemented information technology in libraries through a series of plans; and Trinidad and Tobago, where public librariesare an important location for extending Internet access to the community. Philanthropy organizations may also play a role inproviding Internet access for public libraries.The 2006 Telecommunications Act in the United States created a provision for schools and libraries to benefit from reducedservice charges for Internet access, financed with subsidies from the country’s universal service fund (all licensed telecommunicationoperators contribute a portion of their revenue to the fund). The discount, referred to as the “e-rate,” has madeInternet access more affordable for public libraries, and the proportion of libraries with Internet access has risen from 28 percent in 1996 to over 95 per cent today. 22Venezuela is the only country in Latin America with all of its public libraries providing Internet access to library users. This wasachieved as part of the country’s “Infocentro” project launched in 2000 for creating public Internet access centres. 23 Librariesare a logical place in which to provide access, since they are already public places and in Venezuela they are spread throughoutthe country, with at least one in each state. The National Library of Venezuela has a website and a digital collection of Venezuela’shistorical documents, as well as an online card catalogue. 24 It also participates in regional digital library initiatives. 25Information technology has played a key role in transforming Singapore’s public libraries from “mediocre at best to worldclass.” 26 The transformation began with the establishment of the National Library Board (NLB) in 1995 to implement the nation’sLibrary 2000 plan. 27 From 1998, broadband was rolled out to the two dozen public libraries, and all of the libraries haveWi-Fi Internet access for users with their own laptops. In 2007, there were 38 million physical library visits, 7 million logins tothe NLB website and 72 million electronic retrievals. 28The public-library system in Trinidad and Tobago is recognized as one of the best in the Caribbean. The libraries are administeredby the National Library and Information System Authority (NALIS). 29 As of 2007, all 24 public libraries provided Internetaccess through 250 computers [Watson and Ramlal, 2007]. Some 17 000 people a month use the Internet facilities, wherethey can log on for one hour a day free of charge. A number of libraries also have Wi-Fi Internet access. The libraries’ websitesprovide an array of digital content, including exhibitions that have been held at NALIS; card catalogues showing, among otherthings, how many copies of a book exist, in which branch they are located and whether they are checked out or not; and digitalversions of important historical collections and newspaper clippings.The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been active in supporting Internet access in U.S. public libraries. It has expandedthis activity overseas through the Global Library Initiative. 30 The Foundation has granted over USD 200 million to librariesin ten countries (Chile, Mexico, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Viet Nam, Poland, Botswana, Bulgaria and Ukraine) to providecomputers and Internet access. 31 In 2006, the Public Library Development Project in Latvia received a grant of USD 16 millionfrom the Foundation, along with USD 21 million from the Latvian government and USD 8 million from Microsoft to equip all874 Latvian public libraries with broadband Internet connections, provide Wi-Fi access and furnish around three computersper library. 32Cultural centresThe concept of a “cultural centre” is not well defined, and even the Geneva Plan of Action does not specify what ismeant by the term. It is used only in the wording of the target itself. 33 The Plan of Action does refer to “cultural institutions,”which can be assumed to include cultural centres, under Action Line C8. 34Depending on the definition adopted, there could be a public Internet access consideration, as cultural centres aretypically places where the public gathers, 35 as well as a cultural heritage and local content aspect. Cultural centres76

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTscould include places for arts, educational and recreational activities, exhibitions, shows, social gatherings and so forth(see below for definitions provided by countries). The subtarget would then be in line with Action lines C2, C3 and C8,in particular through promoting the diversity and preservation of cultural heritage. As such, it is also strongly linkedto WSIS Targets 1 and 9.Measuring the subtarget — Proposed indicatorsGiven the dual aspect of public Internet access and local (cultural heritage) content, indicators that could be relevantin the context of this subtarget include:1. Percentage of cultural centres with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Percentage of cultural centres with a website3. Percentage of cultural centres providing public Internet access.The first indicator deals with Internet access, and could constitute a first indication of the use of ICTs in culturalcentres, in this case as a first step, or basic indicator, towards providing Internet access to users and visitors of thecentre. The second indicator focuses on providing online content, looking at whether or not the cultural centre has awebsite, a prerequisite for providing online information and access to content. The third indicator deals with publicInternet access, which could also be monitored under Target 1.However, there is currently no organization or institution that collects data to construct such indicators, and as culturalcentres are not defined, and are extremely diverse (related to culture, arts, sports and other recreational activities,health, religion, etc.), it is extremely difficult to track this target at the international level.Status of the subtargetITU carried out an ad-hoc survey in 2009 in the context of monitoring the WSIS targets. It included questions on Internetaccess in cultural centres, including by type of access. The results point to large differences in connectivity, andhighlight the difficulties in measuring this subtarget. Indeed, the absence of a clear definition of the term “culturalcentre” makes it difficult to collect data. Several countries have reported statistics on the number of cultural centres,though this may vary with the size of the country and its population, and the definitions provided highlight not onlythe problem of circumscribing the concept, but also the diverse interpretations across countries.The responses to the first question on the number of cultural centres already indicate differences across countries,both in the number and the definition (if provided). Some countries reported very large numbers of cultural centres,such as:• Bulgaria: 2 895.• Egypt: 969 — distinguishing between a culture palace, which is a multi-activity complex aiming to upgradethe cultural awareness of the public in different fields and located in the capital and major cities, and a culturehouse, which is a culture complex that serves villages, hamlets and the smaller districts.• Lithuania: 856 (in 2008), where a cultural centre is defined as a legal institution whose aim is to foster ethnicculture, promote amateur art, develop educational and recreational activities and meet the cultural needs ofthe community.• Latvia: 534 (in 2008), where a cultural centre is defined as a multifunctional institution whose aim it is tomaintain and develop Latvian cultural diversity, to promote national and local cultural values and inheritanceof traditions and to facilitate intercultural dialogue and cooperation and help establish an environment thatencourages creation, social participation and lifelong education.• Korea: 390, where the term (public) cultural centre may refer to a “cultural and arts centre” or a “local culturalcentre.” The term “cultural and arts centre” refers to a cultural complex with a main auditorium established by77

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsthe central or local government. The term “local cultural centre” refers to a public corporation established tocarry out local cultural programmes for local culture promotion. 36At the other extreme, Nauru reported zero cultural centres, but did provide a definition (an organization, buildingor complex that promotes Nauruan culture and arts). A single cultural centre was reported by Botswana, Brunei (anattraction centre for ecotourism showcasing Malay culture and tradition), Lesotho, Mexico (where a cultural centre isdefined as a site or group of art spaces developed for entertainment and conducting exhibitions, shows, social gatheringsand reading practice, and designed to hold activities to promote culture among its inhabitants that supportseducation and updating knowledge) and St Lucia (where a cultural centre is defined as an institution for presentingand developing cultural arts and a venue for the stimulation of national pride).Remaining responses were provided by Djibouti (three — where a cultural centre is defined as a place for shows, conferences,exhibitions and socio-cultural animations), Andorra (eight), Bhutan (21, including Dzongs which are centreswhere traditional cultures are preserved), Paraguay (60), Bolivia (71) and Singapore (91 — including performing artscentres, i.e. black boxes, prosceniums, theatres, multipurpose halls, auditoriums and concert halls; and visual artsexhibition halls, i.e. exhibition halls, public galleries (excluding commercial galleries), dedicated art museums andmega-trade exposition halls).Among the countries that responded to the ITU questionnaire, few provided information on access to the Internet forcultural centres (Table 4.4). 37 The available information again points to substantial differences among countries. Allof Korea’s 390 and Singapore’s 91 cultural centres have broadband Internet access. In Egypt, 60 per cent of the 969cultural centres have broadband Internet access. In Hungary, 70 per cent of the 3 487 cultural centres have Internetaccess, but only 29 per cent have broadband Internet access.These data are insufficient for measuring or monitoring the subtarget in a comprehensive manner, and for evaluatingprogress or the likelihood of achieving the subtarget by 2015. Nonetheless, there are initiatives in countries topromote the connectivity of cultural centres (Box 4.3), suggesting that at least some progress has been made.Table 4.4: Cultural centres with Internet access, by country, by type of access, 2009*CountryNumber of culturalcentresNumber of culturalcentres with accessto the Internet (anytype of connection)% of cultural centreswith access tothe Internet (anytype of connection)Number of culturalcentres with accessto the Internet(broadband only)% of culturalcentres with accessto the Internet(broadband only)Brunei 1 0 0 0 0Djibouti 3 3 100 3 100Egypt 969 586 60 586 60Hungary 3 487 2 451 70 1 023 29Korea (Rep.) 390 390 100 390 100Latvia 534 103 19 ... ...Mexico 1 1 100 1 100Paraguay 60 9 15 ... ...Singapore 91 91 100 91 100St. Lucia 1 1 100 1 100Note: * Or most recent available. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.78

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsBox 4.3: Examples of initiatives to connect cultural centresIn Kharkov, Ukraine, the computer laboratory in the Israeli Cultural Centre (ICC) was opened on 12 January 2001. It offers PCs,server, printers and other office equipment. The main audience of the centre includes the participants in ICC programmes,both adults and children. The centre offers various computer qualification courses, and the computer lab is also home to theICC’s Publishing Group which developed the centre’s website and the newspaper “Our news” (“Nashi novosti”). 38The Communication Cultural Centre in Banda Aceh, the capital of Aceh province (Indonesia) focuses on providing ICT training.The centre was established by the UNESCO Jakarta office, under the project funded by United Nations Office of Coordinationfor Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA). A Jakarta-based NGO, Nurul Fikri Foundation, is the implementing partner in the project.The centre became operational late June 2006 and is used by the communities to access and exchange information and topreserve and develop Acehnese culture.The centre provides an FM radio station (producing and broadcasting a variety of news, current affairs and music programmes,as well as talk shows and other interactive programmes), a place for art and culture activities, and an Internet café equippedwith 10 computers, printer and scanner, offering free Internet access and ICT training courses. So far, participants in thesetraining courses have come from diverse backgrounds, including Nasyid’s singers (a group of singers who sing religious songs),journalists, writers and Acehnese traditional dancers. 39Connecting cultural centres can be useful in preserving cultural heritage. For example, in Western Australia as part of the“Saving traditions” project, between 1980 and 2003 a small group of the indigenous Ngalia people generated a lot of culturalresearch material, including a full Ngalia language dictionary and thesaurus, digital song archives, complex databases of genealogyrecords, and maps of culturally significant resources — using GPS receivers to plot locations such as waterholes, rockformations and rivers. In 2006, the Ngalia community expanded their work to a youth participatory video project, in orderto build on the interest shown by young people in using ICTs. The video project yielded many positive outcomes, includingyoung people using traditional language, referring to plants of cultural significance and explaining their traditional uses. Asecond video, filmed and edited entirely by four Ngalia boys, further raised interest in the cultural history and provided amarketable product for the community. The Ngalia have continued to take advantage of new technologies to improve theircommunication facilities, notably by connecting the community cultural centre to a wireless network in 2007. Furthermore,an advocacy-related group around the Ngalia movement — the “Indigenous Land Justice: Ngalia Foundation Appeal” — wascreated using Facebook. 40Connecting cultural centres can also be driven by public-access considerations, as shown in an example from Egypt, wherethe Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) supports the creation of IT clubs in hosting organizations,including community centres. As the early pilot projects (in 1997) had limited reach (mainly children under 15 and local professionals),the ministry subsequently launched the IT Club initiative, designed to promote awareness and provide affordableaccess to ICTs for all Egyptian citizens, including those in underprivileged areas and those with little or no prior experienceof ICTs. At least 40 per cent of the IT clubs have been established in youth centres, sports clubs, cultural centres, schools,mosques, churches and NGOs in every governorate. MCIT selects and supports hosting organizations, notably by providing thenecessary equipment (computers, printers, LAN, Internet access, server, etc.) on the basis of a three-year lease. If the IT clubis successful, it retains ownership of the equipment on lease maturity. Private-sector partners provide space, infrastructure,utilities, furniture and security. 41MuseumsProviding museums with information and communication technology is essential for digitization and electronic disseminationof the world’s cultural heritage. WSIS highlights the importance of connectivity for museums in the GenevaPlan of Action, emphasizing that museums must “... play their full role of content … providers in the informationsociety....” 42 Putting museum collections online extends their reach to a much broader audience than those that canphysically visit the museum.79

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsAnother reason for connecting museums is to improve the linkages between content and context. Many museumsand museum pieces are already on the Internet, whether voluntarily or not, through tourist blogs, travel agencies orphotos of the collection posted on social networking sites. 43 In most cases there is only a superficial, if any, explanationof the work, and the unofficial depiction of museum pieces is often unprofessional. Only museums posses thecuratorial skills required for documenting and providing professional insights into the significance of the pieces intheir collection.Action Line C2 recommends that providing connectivity to museums be included in countries’ national e-strategies. 44Action Line C4, relating to capacity building, is also important in this context, especially the following provision:“Design specific training programmes in the use of ICTs in order to meet the educational needs of information professionals,such as archivists, librarians, museum professionals, scientists, teachers, journalists, postal workers and otherrelevant professional groups. Training of information professionals should focus not only on new methods and techniquesfor the development and provision of information and communication services, but also on relevant managementskills to ensure the best use of technologies. Training of teachers should focus on the technical aspects of ICTs,on development of content, and on the potential possibilities and challenges of ICTs.” 45 Action Line C8 is also againrelevant, advocating that countries “Develop national policies and laws to ensure that libraries, archives, museumsand other cultural institutions can play their full role of content — including traditional knowledge — providers inthe information society, more particularly by providing continued access to recorded information,” 46 thus linking thistarget also to Target 9.Measuring the subtarget — Proposed indicatorsThe International Council of Museums (ICOM) defines a museum as: “... a non-profit, permanent institution in theservice of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates andexhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, studyand enjoyment.” 47 The interpretation of including “connect” in the target is that museums should have Internetaccess. The benefits of online access to a museum’s resources are highlighted by statistics from the SmithsonianMuseums in the United States, which were visited by some 25.2 million people in 2008, eight times less than the172.8 million who visited its websites. 48In addition to the percentage of museums with access to the Internet, by type of access, the proportion of museumswith a website could be a useful indicator towards measuring the online content availability of museums. Havingsaid that, the information featured on museum websites varies greatly, from just the address and opening hours tointeractive features showing museum collections.Thus, the two indicators proposed to measure this subtarget are:1. Percentage of museums with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Percentage of museums with a websiteIt could also be useful to expand on the basic indicator on the percentage of museums with a website to includedemand-side indicators that reflect how often and in what way the websites are being used. A number of museumspublish statistics on the number of hits their websites receive each year. The Prado in Spain surveys visitors to findout their impressions of the museum’s website. Some 18 per cent of visitors consulted the museum’s website priorto their visit. The Musée d’Orsay tracks the percentage of website visitors by language. Mexico asks visitors how theyfound about the museum, with the Internet being one of the choices. Australia publishes data on the percentage ofpieces in museum’s collections that are accessible online.Status of the subtargetA major weakness of museum statistics is that there is no official source for recent data on the number of museums brokendown by country. 49 One problem is the lack of a satisfactory framework for cultural data within national statistical systems,as pointed out by the European Commission: “The field of culture defined in this way does not equate to any particular economicsector and therefore is not covered by sectoral surveys. It includes activities in numerous areas of social and economiclife, which are not always identifiable in economic classifications. As a result, statistics are missing for a number of activitieswhich cannot be singled out and examined from national and European surveys or data collections” [Eurostat, 2007].80

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsTable 4.5: Museums with access to the Internet by type of connection, and with a website, selected countries,2009*CountryNumber ofmuseumsNumber ofmuseumswith Internetaccess (anytype of connection)% of .museumswith Internetaccess (anytype of connection)Number ofmuseumswith Internetaccess(broadbandonly)% of .museumswith Internetaccess(broadbandonly)Number ofmuseumswith a .website% of .museumswith a websiteAlbania 28 27 96 18 64 12 43Andorra 19 ... ... ... ... 4 21Bhutan 4 4 100 ... ... 2 50Bolivia 68 ... ... ... ... ... ...Bosnia and Herzegovina 26 16 62 12 46 13 50Botswana 7 1 14 1 14 1 14Brazil 2618 ... ... ... ... ... ...Brunei 1 ... ... ... ... 1 100Bulgaria 222 154 69 ... ... 85 38Croatia 225 191 85 ... ... 140 62Czech Republic 491 ... ... ... ... 351 71Denmark 124 124 100 124 100 123 99Egypt 104 20 19 20 19 ... ...Hungary 671 279 42 227 34 230 34Iraq 16 ... ... ... ... ... ...Korea (Rep.) 310 310 100 310 100 ... ...Latvia 128 115 90 ... ... 45 35Lesotho 1 ... ... ... ... ... 0Lithuania 106 106 100 7 7 67 63Malta 33 19 58 19 58 23 70Mexico 135 ... ... ... ... ... ...Singapore 8 8 100 8 100 8 100St. Vincent and the1 1 100 1 100 0 0GrenadinesSweden 205 205 100 ... ... 205 100Thailand 1123 ... ... ... ... ... ...Turkey 188 188 100 188 100 10 5Note: * Or latest available year. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.ITU included questions on the connectivity of museums in its 2009 ad-hoc survey carried out in the context of monitoringthe WSIS targets. The results point to substantial differences across countries in the number of museums, theirconnectivity and the percentage of museums with a website (Table 4.5). The reported number of museums rangesfrom over 2 000 in Brazil and over 1 000 in Thailand, to a single museum in Brunei, Lesotho and St Vincent and theGrenadines. Connectivity tends to be higher in developed than in developing countries, but the percentage of museumswith a website lags almost everywhere.In spite of the point made by the European Commission above, the only region with comprehensive data for museumsis Europe. The European Group on Museum Statistics (EGMUS) provides a number of statistics by country,including on the number of museums with a website (Table 4.6). 50 Data are available for 28 countries, reporting some18 500 museums. 51 Among the countries reporting website data, 66 per cent of museums had a website.ICOM supports an online directory of museums (the Virtual Library museums pages — VLmp). 52 Theoretically, the linkscould be aggregated at country level to determine the number of museums with a website. However, the directory is not81

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 4.6: Museums with a website, European countries, latest year availableCountry Year Number of .museumsNumber of visitsNumber of museums with a websiteTotal %Austria 2006 399 11 579 900 ... …Belarus 2008 145 3 977 205 68 47Belgium 2004 162 3 706 139 114 70Croatia 2007 222 2 563 700 131 59Czech Republic 2008 455 9 586 707 ... …Denmark 2004 258 10 077 458 ... …Estonia 2008 224 2 058 817 174 78Finland 2006 322 4 527 830 159 49France 2003 1 173 40 469 600 730 62Germany 2006 6 175 102 645 078 ... …Greece 2007 176 4 755 535 176 100Hungary 2008 671 10 123 438 ... …Ireland 2005 258 ... …Italy 2007 430 34 443 085 ... …Latvia 2007 128 2 402 581 ... …Luxembourg 2006 39 384 20 51Netherlands 2005 775 19 648 000 651 84Norway 2007 173 10 193 903 ... …Poland 2005 690 18 488 000 ... …Portugal 2007 557 6 876 218 ... …Romania 2007 446 3 633 443 236 53Slovak Republic 2003 85 3 886 928 85 100Slovenia 2006 177 2 340 558 164 93Spain 2006 1 343 53 174 971 768 57Sweden 2007 207 18 903 000 ... …Switzerland 2005 948 6 696 417 622 66TFYR Macedonia 2006 22 163 5 23United Kingdom 1999 1 850 74 600 000 ... …EGMUS ... 18 510 ... ... 66Note: See original source for detailed notes. “...”: data not available.Source: European Group on Museum Statistics (EGMUS). “Statistics.” http://www.egmus.eu/index.php?id=10&L=0&STIL=0.comprehensive, as it does not necessarily contain each museum online for every country in the world, some of the links arenot functioning and some appear to be informal portals without official sanction. 53 In any case, without knowing how manymuseums there are in a country, such museum portals are of little use in determining the level of connectivity.Data for other regions are also fairly limited. Among the around 1 000 museums in Africa, roughly a third are inSouth Africa. 54 Though connectivity is low, reflecting the overall poor level of Internet access in the region, there areexceptions. UNESCO, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property82

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsTable 4.7: Selected museums with a website, Africa, 2007Musée historiqued'Abomey, BeninMusée national duBurkina FasoNumberof objectsAR* MF ** MR ***Website1 400 Yes Yes Yes 0 http://www.epa-prema.net/abomeyAbout6 000Yes Yes Yes300.StoppedLibreville, Gabon 2 400 No No Yes 419 http://www.numibia.net/gabon/Robben Isld., SouthAfricaKisumu, KenyaHuila, AngolaSao ToméMadagascar 1About6 000About2 500About3 500About1 400About1 300Yes No YesNo No NoVery few.StoppedNo Yes No NoNo No No 30No No YesFew. Word(destroyed)Madagascar 2 7 000 No Yes Yes 10%. ExcelMusée national du MaliAbout10 000http://www.robben-island.org.za/Computerizedhttp://www.culture.gov.bf/textes/etbl_museenational.htmhttp://www.museums.or.ke/content/blogcategory/14/20/Yes Yes Yes 3668 http://www.mnm-mali.orgNote: *AR=Accession Register. ** MF=Master File. *** MR=Movement Register.Source: Adapted from UNESCO/ICCROM/EPA.(ICCROM) and the Ecole du Patrimoine Africain carried out a study of selected museums in Africa [ICCROM-UNESCO,2007]. Of the ten museums for which data were collected, six had some type of information available on the web(Table 4.7). One challenge the museums face is proper cataloguing, documentation and computerization of their collections.This is an essential prerequisite in order for the pieces to be digitized and posted on a website.Some countries in the Americas publish data on the number of museums (Table 4.8). Several have specificsites dedicated to museum administration and information. Argentina and Canada have portals displaying thelocations of museums in the country. Few countries list the number of museums with a website, but anecdo-Table 4.8: Museums in selected countries in the AmericasNumberof museumsUnited States 4 763 2005 US CensusYear Source PortalCanada 2 400 Canadian HeritageArgentina 863 2007Brazil 2 618Mexico 1 123 2007Source: ITU.Dirección Nacional dePatrimonio y Museos (DNPYM)Sistema Brasileiro de Museus— SBMConsejo Nacional para laCultura y las Arteshttp://www.museevirtuel-virtualmuseum.ca/Search.do?mu=on&lang=enhttp://sinca.cultura.gov.ar/sic/mapacultural/mapa_cultural.php83

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetstal evidence suggests that the ratio is high (e.g. portal listings and dedicated national websites for culturalheritage).Some countries publish data on the number of museums, generally in statistical yearbooks under a culture sectionor through publications of cultural ministries or agencies. 55 According to the Russian Federation’s official museumlist, there are 2 204 museums in the country. 56 All have a description on the portal supported by the FederalAgency on Press and Mass Communications and a number of them have their own website.Developed economies in the Asia and the Pacific region have information about the number of museums and typicallyhave official museum portals including links to museum websites when available. For example, the AustralianBureau of Statistics publishes statistics on the ICT services of museums; it reported that of the 1 329 museums in thecountry at June 2004, 73.5 per cent had a website (and 11.8 per cent of the 54.9 million pieces in their collectionswere available for viewing online). 57 The Republic of Korea has 358 museums; 58 the National Heritage site lists all themuseums with a description, and most have websites. 59 In Japan, the Statistics Bureau reports 1 196 museums; 60 theJapan Internet Museum has entries for around 500, including websites when available. All of Singapore’s 50 or somuseums are online with an entry portal (http://www.museums.com.sg/museums/members/). The main museumsin the region’s large developing nations are online. China’s Statistics Bureau reported 1 722 museums in 2007, ofwhich the biggest is the National Museum of China (http://www.chnmuseum.cn). Six of the seven museums administeredby the Ministry of Culture in India have websites, including the oldest in the Asia and the Pacific region (IndianMuseum, Kolkata).There are a variety of museum-related portals for the Arab States, which give an idea of the number of museumsand website availability. According to the Jordan Tourism Board, the country currently has 27 museums, 61 ofwhich just over a fifth have websites. The Qatar Tourism Authority website lists five museums; 62 two have theirown websites and information about the others can be obtained from the Qatar Museums Authority website. 63The Association of Egyptian Travel Businesses on the Internet lists 47 museums on their website. 64 Most have aTable 4.9: Websites of some of the world’s major museumsMuseum Annual visitors Website Annual web visitorsMusée du Louvre, Paris, France 8 260 000 (2007) 67 www.louvre.fr 9.86 million (2007)Vatican Museums, Vatican City, Rome,Italy... http://mv.vatican.va ...Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 4.7 million (2008/09) www.metmuseum.org 34.7 million (2008/09)J Paul Getty Centre, Los Angeles, California1.6 million (2008) www.getty.edu/museum/ ...Musée d’Orsay, Paris, France 3 025 164 (2008) 68 www.musee-orsay.fr 5 091 983 (2008)Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy ... www.uffizi.firenze.it ...Art Institute of Chicago, Illinois 1 434 000 (2008) www.artic.edu/aic/ ...Tate Modern, London, England 4 647 881 (2008/09) www.tate.org.uk/modern/ 18 494 657Prado Museum, Madrid, Spain 2 759 029 (2008) www.museodelprado.es ...National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC 4.8 million (2009) www.nga.gov 45 800 per day (2009)Note: “...”: data not available.Source: [Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009], [J Paul Getty Trust, 2009], [Musée d’Orsay, 2008], [Art Institute of Chicago, 2008],[Tate Modern London, 2009], [Museo del Prado, 2008], [National Gallery of Art, 2009].84

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsBox 4.4: Virtual museum visitsEstablishing a website is just the first step on a museum’s digital journey. A website can provide practical information such asthe history of the museum, what it contains, its location, operating hours and admission fees. The purpose of any museum is todisplay its collection, and there are numerous ways the Internet can enhance and extend museum holdings. The most obviousis to feature digital versions of the key pieces in the collection. Digital photography has improved in quality and prices havecome down, so high-quality digital cameras are becoming increasingly affordable for many museums around the world. Somemuseums have photographic units that predate the digital age, which were used for documenting collections and providingphotos of works for catalogues. They are now moving to the digital age. The photography unit of the Indian Museum in Kolkatadigitized 7 149 objects in 2008 [India Ministry of Culture, 2009]. Providing digital versions of key holdings is just a first step,the eventual goal being to provide online access to a museum’s whole collection. The Internet digitally extends a museum’sexhibition space, since a website can showcase all of a collection, including works that are not normally displayed because ofa lack of exhibit area or because they are on loan.The collection can be further enriched over the Internet through extensive documentation. The Internet allows far more informationto be provided in respect of a piece than can be offered on a physical visit, plus the ability to link it to related things.The Smithsonian Institute in the United States, which houses 137 million objects in its collection, envisions not only displayingIsaac Singer’s original sewing machine online but also linking it to a video showing how it works. 69Some museums offer virtual tours on their website. The Louvre in Paris allows the viewer to pan and scroll Leonardo da Vinci’smasterpiece “Mona Lisa,” but without the crowds, and to tie in to events such as the film “The Da Vinci Code.” 70 In addition tovirtual tours, users can download podcasts from some museums to listen to when they visit the museum. The MetropolitanMuseum in New York launched podcasts in 2005, and some 330 000 were downloaded in its 2009 fiscal year [MetropolitanMuseum of Art, 2009]. Dozens of museums now offer podcasts through the Apple iTunes store.Other extras that museums are adding to their websites include e-commerce capabilities, so that users can purchase advancetickets online or order guides, catalogues and souvenirs from the museum’s shop. Multilingualism of the website is also important.Paris’s Musée d’Orsay notes that 60 per cent of its website visitors used the French version in 2008, as against 25 percent for English and 6 per cent each for Italian and Spanish [Musée d’Orsay, 2008].The flurry of activity surrounding museum website development is illustrated by growing international exchanges, assistanceand conferences. Archives & Museum Informatics has been holding the annual “Museums and the Web” international conferencesince 1997 71 and also organizes the annual “Best of the Web” awards, which recognize the top museums in a number ofwebsite categories. 72descriptive page on the association’s website. Collections of some of them are included in the Eternal Egypt website,66 a collaboration of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, the Centre for Documentation of Cultural and NaturalHeritage and IBM Corporation.Though complete statistics on the extent of museum connectivity around the world are not available, a number ofcountries have made impressive progress. In addition to the availability of online information about museums, somecountries have created portals linking and geo-tagging their museums. For example, Greece, which reports that all ofits museums are online, adds functionality through a “cultural map” that displays the locations of all museums andallows users to select specific types of museums and see their location on the map.The world’s major museums all have advanced websites, often in different languages, and in addition to reporting thenumber of physical visitors some also report the number of online visitors they receive (Table 4.9). 66While they often lack the sophistication of the world’s largest museums, a growing number of museums in developingcountries have established a web presence. For example, the National Museums of Kenya portal features descriptionsof the 18 museums comprising the system (http://www.museums.or.ke). The Fiji Museum, which dates back to85

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsthe early 1900s, has a wealth of information on its website (http://www.fijimuseum.org.fj), including pictures of itscollections, links to its gift shop and a publications listing.There are ongoing initiatives to improve the connectivity of museums and the online accessibility of collections(Box 4.4).Post officesIn view of the vast network of post offices worldwide, connecting post offices can have a potentially big impact onmaking ICTs available to a wider population who may not otherwise be connected, especially in developing countries.Access is of course one of the main considerations of this subtarget, but this could also be tracked under Target 1;indeed, many policies on connecting post offices specifically mention the intent to use them as public Internet accesspoints (Box 4.5). The subtarget fits in with both WSIS Action Lines C2 and C3. There is potentially also some contentaspect to this subtarget, when post offices offer online services, which are useful not only for individuals but alsofor businesses. In some cases, post offices are used to complement other ICT-related initiatives. For example, in SriLanka, the “Mobile ATM” programme uses mobile phones to confirm cash requests from users, who subsequentlyreceive their cash from a travelling agent, or though a post office. Verification of credentials can be done by bankofficers as well as post-office agents. 73 Overall, connecting post offices could significantly expand access to ICTs inpreviously unconnected areas which are nonetheless served by a post office.Measuring the subtarget — Proposed indicatorsThe two indicators proposed to measure this subtarget are:1. Percentage of post offices with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Percentage of post office offering public Internet access (PIA)Chart 4.1: Proportion of post offices* providing public Internet access, selected countries, 2008%100806040200Korea (Rep.)South AfricaBhutanMauritiusBurkina FasoVenezuelaHong Kong, ChinaRussiaTunisiaBotswanaTogoComorosPortugalRwandaBurundiAngolaBelarusGambiaTanzaniaAlgeriaBarbadosNamibiaFijiSwazilandSingaporeEritreaKyrgyzstanQatarCongoMozambiqueMalawiSierra LeoneBahamasKazakhstanIndonesiaBeninJamaicaZambiaMadagascarSyriaSolomon IslandsZimbabweIndiaUgandaGhanaMexicoUkraineMyanmarBangladeshMalaysiaNote: *Data include both permanent and mobile post offices.Source: ITU based on UPU data.86

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsThe Universal Postal Union (UPU) also collects data on whether certain types of online services are offered in a country(for example, Internet postage service, Internet bill payment, e-mail service, Internet goods-ordering service,and so on). Most of the data pertain to developing countries, where providing Internet access through post offices isrelatively more important than in developed countries, since in the latter the Internet can be accessed more easilyfrom multiple locations, including at home. A useful complement would be to add an urban-rural dimension to thesedata and indicators, as well as an indication of the number of people served by post offices offering public Internetaccess points.Status of the subtargetThe percentage of post offices offering PIA in 2008 was fairly low in most countries for which data are available, andin particular developing countries, where such access points would, arguably, be the most useful (Chart 4.1). Furthermore,while the number of post offices offering PIA in a country is known for quite a few countries, their location is not.Therefore, it is not possible to know whether these post offices are concentrated in the major cities and urban areasor whether they also cover rural or otherwise unconnected areas. Finally, while it is possible to calculate the averagenumber of people to a post office in a country, it is not possible to do this for the post offices offering PIA in particular.The percentage of post offices offering PIA exceeds 20 per cent in only five of the countries for which data are available:the Republic of Korea, South Africa, Bhutan, Mauritius and Burkina Faso; it exceeds 10 per cent in only aroundone-fifth of the countries; and it is less than 5 per cent in three-fifths of the countries.UPU also collects data on the offering of online postal services. Online postal services are available in 61 per cent ofthe countries for which data are available, public Internet access points are offered in 37 per cent of the countries.The proportion of countries in which a given service was offered out of the total number of countries for which dataChart 4.2: Availability of online postal services*, 2008Track and trace services are offered online52Postcode lookup is offered online37E-mail services are offered32Other online services are offered26E-stamp services are offered20Internet bill payment services are offeredOnline address change services are offeredInternet postage services are offeredInternet goods ordering services are availableSubscription services for periodicals are offered onlineElectronic signature services are offered151313121111Digital postmark is offered60 20 40 60 80 100% of countries*Note: *Percentages are based on 188 countries.Source: ITU based on UPU data.87

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 4.5: Examples of initiatives to connect post officesThis box relates some examples of policies or initiatives to connect post offices taken from ICT policy papers. However, as“before and after” data are not available, it is not possible to assess how successful these announcements and initiatives havebeen.In Lesotho, establishing public Internet access points in post offices was part of the 2005 ICT Policy Paper, within a broaderstrategy to use the post offices and the National Library of Lesotho and other public venues to provide public Internet accessthroughout the country. In particular, the Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, in conjunction with relevantstakeholders from the ICT sector and the private sector, was to ensure that all post offices include public access points for theInternet and other ICT services by 2010 [Lesotho Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology, 2005].In Kenya, the 2006 ICT Policy Paper [Communication Commission of Kenya, 2006] stated that the “The government will alsosupport the development, deployment and maintenance of multipurpose community, public library and post office ownedpublic access centres.” Furthermore, the policy paper recognizes that “the use of modern communications technology cansignificantly improve the speed of mail delivery and funds transfer. The government’s ultimate aim is to have all post officesconnected to the Internet to support electronic mail services.” According to UPU data, close to 52 per cent of post offices inKenya offered public Internet access in 2006. While this is already a relatively important percentage of the total number ofpost offices, more still could be connected. Furthermore, in 2003 the number of post offices in Kenya also fell short of the UPUguidelines, with one post office for 36 000 inhabitants in Kenya, significantly less than the one for 6 000 recommended by UPU.In Mauritius, one aim under the ICT policy for 2007-2011 [Mauritius Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunications,2007] is to use post offices for providing public Internet access points: “Government will provide access to ICTs throughthe enhancement of existing public Internet access points (PIAPs) in post offices and the setting up of PIAPs with multipurposefunctions at new locations to be accessed by the whole community.” According to UPU data, some 32 per cent of post officesin Mauritius offered PIA in 2008, leaving plenty of scope for increasing post-office connectivity.In Jamaica, the September 2009 ICT policy statement on universal service 74 specifies that the government will “continue tofund connectivity services and supporting infrastructure to educational institutions, libraries, post offices” using the UniversalService Fund to “(among other initiatives) support connectivity access, the provision of hardware, software and supporting infrastructureto schools, provision of hardware and software to libraries and post offices; support content, information literacy,educational and technical training in ICTs.” According to UPU data, only 0.9 per cent of post offices in Jamaica provided publicInternet access in 2008, indicating that there is still a huge potential for improvement.In Bhutan, post offices have been revamped into ICT centres. Since 2003, a joint project by ITU, UPU and the governments ofIndia and Bhutan has managed to connect a total of 37 post offices, and to bring the benefits of digital technologies to peoplein rural and remote areas across Bhutan. The project covers some very remote locations that had no telecommunication infrastructureand now enjoy VSAT-based connectivity, providing their inhabitants with various ICTs, including basic telephone andfax services and Internet access. Access to telecommunication/ICT services has had a major impact on people’s lives. Whileit used to take postal mail five to seven days to reach certain villages, people can now send and receive messages or makephone calls instantaneously. The project also allowed people in newly connected areas to receive up-to-date information onthe country’s 2008 election results, and helped to modernize Bhutan Post, which was able to improve some of its workingmethods and encourage innovation among its staff [ITU-UPU, 2009].88

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTswere available in 2008 is given in Chart 4.2. Tracking and tracing is the most widely available service (in 52 per cent ofthe countries), followed by post code look-up (37 per cent), and e-mail services (32 per cent).Even though the proportion of countries where post offices offer PIA is still fairly low, as is the proportion of countriesin which online postal services are available, there are initiatives under way in developing countries to connect postoffices (Box 4.5).ArchivesConnecting archives is extremely important from a content point of view, in particular in the context of the Action Lines C3and C8. This subtarget is also closely related to Target 9 on encouraging the development of local content. As archives constitutethe memory of nations and of societies, they contribute to shaping their identity and support the respect, preservation,promotion and enhancement of cultural and linguistic diversity and cultural heritage within the information society.Furthermore, “by guaranteeing citizens” rights of access to official information and to knowledge of their history, archives arefundamental to democracy, accountability and good governance.” 75 The objective to connect archives is important from thepoint of view of granting access to stored information and knowledge, as well as for digitizing content in the form of digitalarchives. Many countries have national archives to store important records, and some also have regional and local archives.Measuring the subtarget — Proposed indicatorsAs content can be considered an important part of Target 4, and archives should guarantee citizens access to officialinformation and knowledge, several indicators can be proposed to measure and monitor this aspect of the subtarget,in addition to the Internet access aspect:1. Archives with access to the Internet, by type of access2. Archives with a website3. Percentage of content in archives that has been digitized4. Percentage of digitized information in archives that is available onlineThe first two are indicative of the use of ICTs in archives, and whether or not the archives have a website — a prerequisitefor providing online content. The third and fourth indicators deal directly with the information made availableonline — the third measures the amount of content potentially available online and which can be preserved andshared in digital formats, and the fourth measures the content actually available online.Status of the subtargetITU included questions on the connectivity of archives in its 2009 ad-hoc survey carried out in the context of monitoringthe WSIS targets. In collaboration with the International Council on Archives (ICA), it also collected informationfrom ICA members 76 on the following questions: 771. Does the national archive have a website?2. What percentage of the content has been digitized?3. What percentage of the (digitized) information is available online?4. What is the total number of archives in the country?5. What is the number of archives connected to the Internet?6. What is the number of archives with a broadband Internet connection?7. What is the number of archives with a website?89

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 4.3: Percentage of archives with access to the Internet and with a website, by country, 2009% of archives connected to the Internet % of archives with a broadband connection % of archives with a website%1009080706050403020100DenmarkLatviaSt. Lucia*Singapore*Sri Lanka*St. Vincent*SwedenSwitzerlandEstoniaItaly**EgyptAustriaAlbaniaMexico*Bosnia and Herz.LithuaniaCroatiaSerbiaHungaryBoliviaNew ZealandNotes: *Only one national archive. **Italy does not have a national archive. It has a central state archive and a network of 103 state archives.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.The available information reveals large differences across countries in the numbers of archives, the percentage of archiveswith access to the Internet and the percentage of archives with a website (Chart 4.3). For example, some countriesreported only one national archive, while others reported as many as 250 archives (Austria and Switzerland),500 archives (Sweden) and even 2 560 archives in Mexico. 78 In most countries, archives that have access to the Internethave a broadband connection. For now, relatively fewer archives have websites, although this could be because thewebsite of the national archive, or a central archive, covers several branches or a network of archives or branches.Table 4.10: Digitization of archived information, 2009Percentage ofcontent thathas been digitizedPercentageof (digitized)informationavailable onlinePercentage ofcontent thathas been digitizedPercentageof (digitized)informationavailable onlineAustria 5 100 Mexico 5 24Bolivia 0.6 0 New Zealand 1

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsBox 4.6: The importance of digital archivesThe importance of keeping information has been recognized in international organizations such as the International Councilon Archives (ICA), which promotes the preservation and use of archives around the world; UNESCO, which promotes archivesas a part of the World Cultural Heritage; and UNHCR, which stresses the importance of archives for dealing with both the pastand the present. The digital divide also affects the world of archives, and digital archiving is an important subject in the WSISfollow-up and is, indirectly, part of the WSIS targets.Dealing with the past covers a number of areas of activity, including fact-finding missions and carrying out justice. Truth commissionsand national and international tribunals play a crucial part in this regard, as do projects for the rehabilitation andcompensation of victims. Archives, both public and private, are key institutions for identifying, selecting and protecting recordsthat are important for human rights, preserving them and making them available to underpin the principle of non-impunity.An important project in this regard is the establishment of the Slave Trade Archives, launched by UNESCO 1999 with the aimof improving access to, and safeguarding of, original documents related to the transatlantic slave trade and slavery. As part ofthe Memory of the World programme, and in close cooperation with ICA, a feasibility study was carried out to identify nationalarchives and related institutions in African, Latin American and Caribbean countries, in order to upgrade their facilities andservices. The aim is to ensure adequate preservation of original records and to obtain copies and other documents pertainingto slavery.A famous example of preserving the World Cultural Heritage in Africa is the archive / library of Timbuktu, Mali, which containshundreds of thousands of ancient manuscripts, mostly written in Arabic; the documents provide a detailed record of daily andintellectual life from the 12th century onward. The fragile manuscripts are digitized, translated, studied, catalogued and communicateddigitally to preserve the originals.Beside the cultural and “dealing with the past” aspects, archiving is a cornerstone of the interdependence of informationmanagement and administrative transparency. Here, the monetary advantages of digital records management and archivingare very important. According to estimates by various governments, millions of dollars are being saved annually in public administrationsthanks to advice from archives, especially on digital information and records management.A rapidly increasing number of administrations will be carrying out their business processes electronically by the end of thisdecade. As a result, documents and data will increasingly be created in digital form only. In addition, a large part of administrative,scientific or economic data will be stored in databases. Archives will have to set up a standardized archiving procedure,ranging from pre-archiving advisory services to document access, taking into account both the organizational and the technicaldimensions. Take, for example, the case of Switzerland:• Electronic records management: the Swiss government has passed a range of measures regarding uniform and standardizedhandling of electronic files, data and documents. The central aim is the comprehensive introduction of electronicrecords and process management and the ancillary step of making the electronic documents legally binding.• Digital archiving at the Swiss Federal Archive (SFA) aims to reduce the volume of information, and technical complexity.It includes the following steps: selection of information; separation of data from specific IT environments (applications,operating systems, hardware); open, standardized environments that are as generic as possible; homogeneous storageinfrastructure; standardization of file formats; and migration procedures.Technical solutions for digital archiving exist, but further development and testing is necessary. In addition, digital archiving requiresarchivists to develop new skills. In a period when the methodologies for handling huge quantities of recorded informationare gradually emerging, archivists need a solid knowledge of their own professional principles, as well as an understandingof the risks and opportunities of new approaches. All these required investments cannot be made by single institutions. How-91

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 4.6: The importance of digital archives (continued)ever, (digital) collaboration across industries that produce source and freeware solutions is a promising way forward. Such anapproach will not only reduce the digital divide, but will also enable archives to integrate new knowledge by working with ICTprofessionals. The challenges of the digital age, therefore, provide opportunities as well as risks. However, reliable evidencewith contextually embedded information will remain an important and valuable good that guarantees societal auditability,forms an economic asset, and is indispensable for scientific research and as a basis for trust.The 8th European Conference on Digital Archiving, 28 - 30 April 2010, GenevaThe 8th European Conference on Digital Archiving was held in Geneva from 28 to 30 April 2010. It followed in the footsteps ofthe European Conferences on Archives of recent decades. However, by emphasizing digital elements and archiving as a functioninstead of the archive as an institution, it sought to adopt a new approach. The future will be digital, but it is importantalso to preserve the analogue tradition: it is the responsibility of all archivists that the archive of the future be a safe place forthe analogue and digital traces of the past.See: http://www.eca2010.ch.Not many countries responded to the digitization questions (2 and 3 above). The available information suggests digitizationis still in its infancy (Table 4.10). However, there are attempts to raise awareness of the importance of digitalarchives (Box 4.6).Conclusions and recommendationsTarget 4 groups together five different types of institutions: libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices andarchives. Even though they are similar to the extent that they each provide highly information — and knowledgeintensiveservices, they are also quite different, notably in terms of the specific purpose they serve and the role theycan play in contributing to providing Internet access or online content. Indeed, the objective of connecting these institutionscan be twofold: providing public Internet access (notably in libraries, cultural centres and post offices), anddeveloping local content in local languages (libraries, museums and archives). As such, this target is strongly linkedto WSIS Targets 1 and 9, respectively.Each of the subtargets is characterized by a lack of comprehensive, recent and internationally comparable data,and in most cases the absence of a harmonized definition and measurement scope. The data that are availablesuggest that, while some level of connectivity has been established in each of the five subtargets, much moreneeds to be done to ensure that all museums, libraries, archives, cultural centres and post offices are connectedto the Internet by 2015. Apart from Internet access, there is also a lot to be done in terms of digitizinginformation, including archived information and library and museum collections, and making it available online.Even though data are even scarcer on this aspect, what material is available suggests there is still a long wayto go before large shares of cultural heritage and content are digitized and available online, let alone achievingcomplete availability.Overall, it is in regard to access to the Internet that the target is the most advanced in each of the five subtargets.The provision of Internet access for the public and establishing websites tend to lag behind. Furthermore,connectivity in most of these institutions is much higher in developed countries, and the potential for improvementis greatest in developing countries; yet providing public Internet access is most relevant in the latter,since in the developed world increasing proportions of people have Internet access either at home, at work orat school.92

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsProviding public Internet accessLibraries, post offices and — depending on the definition — cultural centres are ideal locations for providing thecommunity with public Internet access (PIA). They already have an existing infrastructure including a network ofbranches, and are open to the public, which means they may reach a population that is not otherwise connected and/or does not have access to other PIA locations. In addition, libraries hold a repository of information, and electronicaccess to information seems a logical extension of their activities.The available evidence suggests that most public libraries are keen to enter the digital age, but a lack of funding isoften the key barrier. While in developed countries most libraries tend to have access to the Internet, this is not yetthe case in developing countries. Where data on libraries providing public Internet access are available, such as inLatin America and the Caribbean, they paint a mixed picture. The data for post offices show that offering PIA is notwidespread in most of the countries for which data are available, including in developing countries.Establishing, or continuing to establish, PIA in libraries and post offices, particularly in developing countries, andencouraging the provision of online information and services, is a worthwhile goal to pursue, as it has the potentialto reach substantial parts of the population, including those not yet “connected.” In some cases, this may requiregreater private-sector involvement, for example through public-private partnerships.Providing online contentLibraries, museums and archives each have the provision of online content in common. Many libraries have a treasureof local content — from rare Buddhist texts in the National Library of Bhutan to historical documents dating backto the time of Christopher Columbus in the National Library of Trinidad and Tobago. It is essential these be digitizedand made available online in order to promote cultural diversity (cf. Target 9). Similarly, putting the collections of allmuseums and the information held in archives worldwide on the Internet is vital for providing wider access to theworld’s cultural heritage. In most developed countries, these institutions are present on the Internet, although theavailable online information could be expanded; and some of the major institutions in developing countries also havea website, although generally with less information that can be accessed online. Therefore, one of the main challengesis to bring more institutions in developing countries online and to enrich the content of those already havinga website.Providing ICTs for libraries, museums and archives is critical for supporting the digitization of cultural heritage andmaking it available online to researchers and the public. Unfortunately, many developing countries lack the resourcesfor basic museum upkeep, let alone budgets for information technology. Bandwidth is also often a constraint, in additionto Internet connection charges.One interim solution would be for national cultural agencies to at least create an online portal listing the culturalinstitutions in a country, along with a brief description. In the long run, a more progressive solution is required thatwould allow individual institutions to build up content on their own websites.Governments should step up efforts to provide appropriate resources to public libraries, museums and archives forthem to achieve full connectivity by 2015. Although there is still some way to go, especially in developing countries,the target is attainable by 2015. Indeed, there are many initiatives under way to connect these institutions, andthe cost of connecting them is relatively low, especially since there are relatively fewer of them than householdsor schools, thus increasing the feasibility of reaching the target. Supplementary sources of funding may include theprivate sector, development agencies and philanthropy organizations, which can be combined with governmentbudgets to create partnerships for connecting these institutions and enabling them to create websites. An exampleof partnerships might be for libraries, museums and archives in developed countries to “adopt” an institution in adeveloping country.There are also examples of private-sector involvement in bringing museum content in developing countries online.One example of a public-private partnership is IBM working with China, Egypt and Russia to develop web presencesfor their cultural heritage. 79 The Getty Foundation, part of the Getty Institute that also includes the museum of thesame name, is working with Jordan’s Department of Antiquities to develop an Arabic-English website with a geographicalinformation system featuring the locations of important cultural heritage sites [J Paul Getty Trust, 2008].93

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsThere is also a content aspect to connecting post offices, since postal services can be offered online, although theycould also be accessed from other locations. The availability of online postal services is still fairly limited, as even themost commonly offered service (online tracking and tracing) is available in only 52 per cent of countries.It is ironic that despite complaints about lack of local content, few resources tend to be devoted to nurturing it. TheGeneva Plan of Action specifically mentions the importance of supporting efforts to develop and use ICTs for thepreservation of natural and cultural heritage, keeping it accessible as a living part of today’s culture. This includesdeveloping systems for ensuring continued access to archived digital information and multimedia content in digitalrepositories, and for supporting archives, cultural collections and libraries as the memory of humankind. Nationalpolicies and laws thus need to be drawn up to ensure that libraries, archives, museums and other cultural institutionscan play their full role as purveyors of content, including traditional knowledge, in the information society, moreparticularly by providing continued access to recorded information.Monitoring progress towards 2015Monitoring progress on these subtargets requires the collection of additional data. Going forward, it could be usefulto separate out the two different aspects of Target 4: on the one hand, providing PIA (which could also be trackedunder Target 1) and, on the other, the provision of (local) content online (which could also be tracked as part ofTarget 9).Where data are available, mainly for libraries and museums, definitions should be tightened and internationally harmonized.The scope of the definitions should also be clear. In the case of libraries and archives, for example, there isroom for confusion as to whether the definition refers only to the central institution or whether the scope extends tobranches and networks. Data should also be collected in a timely manner for as many countries as possible, and additionalinformation and indicators need to be collected to enhance the analytical contribution that can be obtained.In addition to countries, organizations such as IFLA, ICOM and ICA could perhaps also play a role in collecting data.Data are available for post offices through UPU, which is the dedicated organization collecting data, including on theprovision of PIA.Cultural centres are a specific case, in that data required to construct indicators for monitoring progress on this subtargetare not currently collected by any organization or institution. As a result, it is not easy to assess how useful thissubtarget is. It would be helpful to have a harmonized definition of a cultural centre, as well as further guidance onwhether this subtarget is driven more by public access or by content considerations.94

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTsNotes1Substantial inputs to the sections on libraries and museums have been provided by Michael Minges. Box 4.6 was provided by Guido Kollerand Manuela Höfler of the Schweizerisches Bundesarchiv. Annick Carteret of the International Council on Archives assisted in the collectionof information from ICA members.2See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html, §43See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c2, §94See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c3, §105See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c8, §236See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c4, §11 k)7http://www.ala.org/ala/research/initiatives/plftas/index.cfm.8See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c3, §10 h) and i).9http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/organisation/about_us/aboutus_en.html.10http://www.kb.se/english/about/digitazation/.11http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/253&type=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.13http://www.wdl.org/en/about/background.html.13http://books.google.com/googlebooks/agreement/.14http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20081027_booksearchagreement.html.15http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,473529-2,00.html.16http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=6970_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC.17IFLA/FAIFE, 2007, World Report, http://archive.ifla.org/faife/report/world_report_2007.htm.18The discrepancy could also be caused by the definition of a public library as being primarily financed by public sources. There are around2 000 “popular” libraries in Argentina supported by local neighbourhood associations. See:http://www.conabip.gov.ar/contenidos/institucional/que-es-conabip.asp.19Australian Bureau of Statistics, Public Libraries, Australia, 2003-04. (2005). http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8561.0Main%20Features12003-04?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8561.0&issue=2003-04&num=&view=.20National Center for Education Statistics (U.S.). March 2005. Public Libraries in the United States: Fiscal Year 2002.http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008301.21The European Union has put emphasis on the availability of electronic card catalogues in public libraries and defined a six-stage processin terms of the online functionality [European Commission, 2007].22Anon. E-rate and Universal Service. American Libarary Association. http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/telecom/erate/index.cfm.[Accessed 1 April 2010]23http://www.infocentro.gob.ve/.24http://www.bnv.gob.ve/.25http://www.comunidadandina.org/bda/.26http://harvardbusiness.org/product/transforming-singapore-s-public-libraries-abridged/an/805028-PDF-ENG.27http://ifla.queenslibrary.org/IV/ifla62/62-sabj.htm.28http://www.nlb.gov.sg:80/Corporate.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=Corporate_portal_page_aboutnlb&node=corporate%2FAbout+NLB%2FFast+Facts&corpCareerNLBParam=Fast+Facts.29http://www2.nalis.gov.tt/Home/tabid/37/Default.aspx.30http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/libraries.aspx.31http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009108724_apusgatesfoundationlibraries.html.32http://www.3td.lv/index.php/en/par/apraksts/.33See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html, § 6d).34See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c8, § 23b)35In this case, they should also be considered under Target 1 on community access points.36Local Culture Promotion Act, Article 2.37Latvia reported that in 2005, 103 cultural centres had access to the Internet, but the total number of cultural centres was not given forthat year. However, 534 cultural centres were reported in 2008.95

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets38See http://ort.ru/en/sng/complete-list-of-ort-schools-and-centres-in-cis/ukraine/city-kharkov/.39See http://portal.unesco.org/geography/en/ev.php-URL_ID=8503&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.40See http://www.comminit.com/en/node/269602/307.41See http://www.arabdev.org/node/add/book/parent/90.42See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c8, § 23b).43For example the Picasso Museum in Barcelona notes that over 500 unauthorized photos of its works are on Flickr, as well as over100 videos on YouTube. http://www.slideshare.net/museupicassobarcelona/museu-picasso-le-voyage-de-web-10-web-20.44See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c2.45See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c4, § 11k). This action line is alsoimportant for the other subtargets insofar as specific skills, including ICT skills, are required for building up online content and digitizingcollections.46See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html #c8, § 23b).47http://icom.museum/hist_def_eng.html.48http://www.si.edu/about/.49While the UNESCO Institute of Statistics lists a 1999 questionnaire for museum statistics, no data on museums are available from theirwebsite.50http://www.egmus.eu/.51http://www.egmus.eu/index.php?id=10&L=0&STIL=0.52http://icom.museum/vlmp/.53Another website, MuseumLink, claims “it will eventually contain links to every museum on the planet, from the world’s largest to the mostobscure (assuming they have a website).” http://www.museumlink.com/.54http://www.dac.gov.za/DACinstitutions.html.55For example, Japan has data on the number of museums in the “Education and Culture” chapter of its Statistical Handbook [StatisticsBureau of Japan, 2007]. The Statistical Abstract of the United States has a section on “Arts, Recreation, and Travel” that includes data onthe number of museums, number of employees and revenue (e.g. US Census Bureau, 2010). In Mexico, the number of museums and abreakdown by state are included in the publication “Estadísticas básicas de la cultura en México” [Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y lasArtes, 2008].56http://www.russianmuseums.info.57http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D4CDAABA966DC2CACA25700D00762129/$File/85600_2003-04.pdf.58http://www.korea.net/detail.do?guid=28252.59http://www.heritage.go.kr/eng/mus/nat_lis.jsp.60http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/c16cont.htm#cha16_3.61http://www.visitjordan.com/visitjordan_cms/Museums/tabid/762/Default.aspx.62http://www.qatartourism.gov.qa/pillars/index/1/culture/232.63http://www.qma.com.qa/eng/index.php/qma/home.64http://www.touregypt.net/museums.htm.65http://www.eternalegypt.org/EternalEgyptWebsiteWeb/HomeServlet?ee_website_action_key=action.display.sites&language_id=1.66The list has been compiled by a travel website based on the amount of traffic it gets to different listings. See:http://www.tripadvisor.com/PressCenter-i173-c1-Press_Releases.html.67http://www.louvre.fr/media/repository/ressources/sources/pdf/src_document_54288_v2_m56577569831217194.pdf.68http://www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/collections/histoire-du-musee/quelques-chiffres.html.69http://www.si.edu/opa/annualrpts/2008report/Smithsonian2008.pdf.70http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673458526&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673458720&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673458720&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474395181115&bmLocale=en.71http://www.archimuse.com/conferences/mw.html.72http://conference.archimuse.com/forum/mw2009_best_web_sites_selected.73See http://publius.cc/dialogue_icts_human_development_growth_and_poverty_reduction/091109 and http://aitec.usp.net/Banking%20&%20Payment%20Technologies%20EA,,17-19Feb2009/MarkHeffernan_SECTECS%20%5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf.96

Target 4: Connect public libraries, cultural centres, museums, post offices and archives with ICTs74See http://www.opm.gov.jm/node/1078.75See the International Council on Archives: http://www.ica.org/en/about.76Responses were received from 11 countries.77Questions 5, 6 and 7 were also included in the ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.78The numbers for Sweden and Switzerland are estimates.79http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ibmgives/grant/arts/index.shtml.97

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesArt Institute of Chicago (2008), Report of the Treasurer.Communications Commission of Kenya (2006), ICT Policy Paper.Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes (2008), Estadísticas básicas de la cultura en México.European Commission (2007), “The User Challenge Benchmarking The Supply Of Online Public Services,” reportprepared by Gapgemini for European Commission Directorate for Information Society and Media, 7th Measurement,September 2007.Eurostat (2007), Cultural Statistics, 2007 edition, Eurostat Pocket Books, European Commission, 2007.India Ministry of Culture (2009), Annual Report 2008-09.ITU-UPU (2009), Satellite Connectivity to Remote Areas and E-Services for Development: Initiatives through Post OfficeTelekiosks in Bhutan. A cooperation project between the Royal Government of Bhutan, the Governmentof India, the International Telecommunication Union and the Universal Postal Union, ITU-UPU 2009.ICCROM-UNESCO (2007), Partnership for the Preventive Conservation of Endangered Museum Collections in developingcountries. Documentation of collections summary of final report, 2007.Getty Trust, J. P. (2009), 2008 Report.Lesotho Ministry of Communications, Science and Technology (2005), ICT Policy for Lesotho.Mauritius Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunications (2007), National ICT Policy 2007-11.Metropolitan Museum of Art (2009), Annual Report 2008-2009.Musée d’Orsay (2008), Rapport d’Activités 2008.Museo del Prado (2008), Informe Anual 2008.National Gallery of Art (2009), National Gallery of Art Performance and Accountability Report for the year endedSeptember 30, 2009, Washington DC.Statistics Bureau of Japan (2007), Statistical Handbook of Japan, Chapter 16: Education and culture, Director-Generalfor Policy Planning (Statistical Standards) and Statistical Research and Training Institute.Tate Modern London (2009), Tate Report 08-09.Watson, P. K., and B. Ramlal (2007), The Digital Divide in Trinidad & Tobago 2007, Telecommunication Authority ofTrinidad and Tobago, 2007.98

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsTarget 5: Connect health centres andhospitals with ICTs 1IntroductionAs with most of the other WSIS targets, the wording of Target 5 aims to provide high-level guidance to countries,allowing scope for interpretation. The ultimate goal of the targets is to connect the citizens of the world, and theinstitutions and facilities which serve them, so as to provide the communications infrastructure to deliver online thetools and services of the information age. The WSIS targets are essentially ICT targets, reflecting the composition ofthe WSIS delegates, who were primarily from the ICT sector.In the Geneva Declaration of Principles, all WSIS stakeholders resolved to work together to “ensure that everyone canbenefit from the opportunities that ICTs have to offer.” The health sector was among those identified as potentiallybenefiting from ICT applications, for example through the more efficient delivery of healthcare services and the provisionof health information to the general public, resulting in Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs.At the second phase of WSIS, the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society stakeholders elaborated on Target 5 byaligning the work more closely with that of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), stating “we are committedto improving access to the world’s health knowledge and telemedicine services….” 2 It is proposed that governmentsstrategically align Target 5 with MDG Goal 8F, which promotes the public-private partnership (PPP) approach fordevelopment, in order to “in cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies,especially information and communications.”Target 5 needs to be considered in the context of WSIS Action Line C6 (Enabling environment), which addresses thecreation of an enabling environment, 3 and Action Line C2 (Information and communication infrastructure), whichstates that, in the context of national e-strategies, countries should provide and improve ICT connectivity, includingfor health institutions. 4 The health sector is also specifically mentioned in Action Line C7 (ICT applications), whichrelates to benefits in all aspects of life, notably through e-health applications. 599

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsUse of ICT for health as an internationally agreed goalThe World Health Organization (WHO) defines the use of ICT for health as ”e-health.” 6 Carefully planned introductionof ICT into the health sector should result in improved ways in which data and information are collected, stored, retrievedand shared. ICT has proven to be a powerful tool in supporting more effective delivery of health services andincreasing the efficiency of health systems. Trends show that the adoption of e-health enabling policies and actions inthe health sector started to gain momentum in high-income and upper-middle income countries in the early 1990s.Uptake by developing countries started more slowly, but has significantly accelerated since 2000 [WHO, 2006].It should be noted that while Target 5 refers to hospitals and health centres, these are not well defined. Health systemsare highly complex structures that vary from country to country and consist of many inter-related components.These components are the facilities and institutions which care directly or indirectly for citizens’ health needs, professionaland support staff, infrastructure, health commodities such as medication and technical equipment, logisticsmanagement and finance. They deliver care in public health and educate and deploy the health workforce. As healthsystems become increasingly sophisticated and, therefore, a greater challenge to manage, the use of ICTs in processingpatient, hospital and health-facility information is becoming an integral part of health-systems management atall levels of care.Health systems in most countries comprise three levels of service — primary, secondary and tertiary, but not allcountries have all of these levels. Primary care is the first level of care that a citizen will encounter. Primary care isnon-emergency care, and is usually provided by a medical or nursing practitioner in health centres. Secondary care ismore specialized, and is provided in a hospital setting as either inpatient or outpatient services. Tertiary care refersto the provision of complex treatments offered in specialized hospitals and provided by medical specialists.The health sector is highly information-intensive. Providing effective health services requires the extensive collectionof patient data in analogue and digital forms, which are then processed and disseminated within the same institutionor sent to other institutions. Increasingly, these data will not only be shared within the same country, but will besent to other countries, if necessary for the treatment of the patient. E-health also serves to broaden the informationand communication horizons of healthcare workers. Knowledge, information and data can now be accessed andexchanged locally, nationally, regionally and globally. These opportunities apply equally to developing countries andto developed countries although, clearly, the challenges are greater in the developing world.The face of public health services is changing as they adopt ICTs. Examples of applications in the health sector include:• Electronic health records/electronic medical records EHR/EMR (often used interchangeably): the use of ICTs togenerate, store and share longitudinal real-time electronic records of a patient’s healthcare information• Telehealth/telemedicine: the use of ICTs to offer diagnostic and treatment services remotely• M-health/mobile health: the use of mobile devices such as mobile phones for health purposes (Box 5.1)• Decision-support systems (DSS): the use of online information resources for clinical decision-making• E-learning: the use of ICTs for the education and ongoing training of health professionals and students• E-journals: the use of ICTs to create and publish virtual journals and disseminate them via the Internet or CD/DVD if connectivity is poor.An example of an initiative that supports the latter two applications is provided in Box 5.2.100

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsBox 5.1: M-healthM-health (also known as mobile health) is a relatively recent term for medical and public health practice supported by mobiledevices, such as mobile phones, patient monitoring devices, PDAs and other wireless devices [Germanakos et al., 2005].M-health presents a unique opportunity to improve health services. The massive expansion of mobile technology worldwidecoupled with the continued lack of adequate Internet connectivity in many poorer countries provides fertile ground for m-health to grow. By the end of 2009, there were an estimated 4.6 billion mobile cellular subscriptions, 3.2 billion of which inthe developing world [ITU, 2010]. Thus, with an estimated mobile cellular penetration rate of 56.8 per 100 inhabitants in thedeveloping world, mobile technologies constitute a powerful tool for health-related purposes on a large scale.M-health offers a number of areas of application for public health, including:• Remote diagnosis and support• Medication adherence and remote monitoring• Disease outbreak surveillance and associated data collection and reporting• Mass dissemination of public health information.The following case study illustrates the use of m-health in the fight against HIV/AIDS in South Africa.The use of cell phones in combating HIV/AIDS in South AfricaSouth Africa enjoys a very high mobile cellular penetration rate: 90.6 mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2008[ITU, 2010]. The prevalence rate of HIV and AIDS in adults aged 15 to 49 is 18.1 per cent. 7 Cell-Life, a Cape Town-based NGO,is seizing the opportunity to capitalize on the existing highly developed mobile communications infrastructure to combat theAIDS epidemic by using mobile phones as a health communication tool.A major ongoing programme of Cell-Life is Aftercare, where health workers provide home-based care to HIV/AIDS patientsreceiving antiretroviral treatments (ART). The Aftercare programme uses mobile technology to support treatment. Regimensare discussed and clinical information is captured using mobile devices. The information is then sent as a text message to acentral patient database. There, a care manager monitors incoming patient data and can respond to health workers’ questionsor provide additional information for the patient. Not only is the programme proving to be effective due to its immediacy inproviding information, but it is helping to build a database of the severity and prevalence of HIV in the region. The cost of theprogramme has been kept relatively low through the use of data-collection software which operates even on low-cost mobilephones.Source: WHO.Measuring Target 5 — Proposed indicatorsAs with the other WSIS targets, there is a need for further clarification of what is being measured and how it is tobe measured. Each element in the target requires a definition in order to ensure national and global consistency ofmeasurement and reporting and comparable results.The following definitions are suggested for Target 5: 91. Hospital — Residential establishment equipped with inpatient facilities for 24-hour medical and nursing care,diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of the sick and injured, usually for both medical and surgical conditions,and staffed with at least one physician. The hospital may also provide outpatient services.101

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 5.2: HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) — When content drives connectivityThe HINARI project is a concrete example of how providing connectivity to teaching hospitals and universities can profoundlyimprove researchers and health professionals, in training and in practices, through access to the world of scientific literature.The initiative provides access for health professionals and students to thousands of online biomedical journals. It grew out ofthe Health Internetwork (HIN) which originated from the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000. HIN builds its foundationfor the successful introduction of digital initiatives on four pillars: connectivity, content, capacity building and supportingpolicy. As a programme, HINARI satisfies all of these criteria and has grown to be the largest electronic journals programmeof its kind in the world.HINARI’s mission is to provide online access to the leading biomedical journals of the world at no, or very low, cost. The programmetargets non-for-profit health-related institutions in developing countries, with the objective of bridging the digitalknowledge divide between rich and poor countries. As a public-private partnership, HINARI is a collaborative effort betweenWHO and the world’s major academic publishers. Launched in 2002 with 1 500 online journals from just six publishers, theservice has now grown to an offering of 6 200 journals from 150 publishers. 8Eligible institutions include universities; schools of medicine, nursing, pharmacy, public health and dentistry; teaching hospitals;research institutes and national medical libraries. Eligibility and the pricing structure are based on World Bank GNI percapita figures. Countries with a GNI per capita of less than USD 1 250 enjoy free access to all journals. Countries with GNI percapita of between USD 1 250 and USD 3 500 pay USD 1 000 per annum per institution for unlimited access to the content.Most of the journal articles are in PDF format, resulting in large files and the need for adequate connectivity to downloadthem. HINARI recommends a minimum speed of 56 kbit/s. It would be useful to know what the connection speed is for eachof the four thousand participating institutions but, unfortunately, subscribing institutions provide only limited details whenregistering and connectivity data are not known to the service providers at WHO.At the beginning of 2010, the number of participating institutions had reached 4 221 across 109 countries (Table 1 Box 5.2).Table 1 Box 5.2: HINARI institutions by WHO region, 2010WHO Region Number of institutions Percentage of total institutions withHINARIAfrican Region 1 510 35Americas Region 724 17Eastern Mediterranean Region 531 13European Region 578 14South East Asian Region 459 11Western Pacific Region 419 10World total 4 221 100Note: These regions reflect WHO conventions.Source: HINARI programme data.The rapid distribution of up-to-date international health-science knowledge across so many developing countries would nothave been possible without Internet connectivity. Not only would the cost have been prohibitive, so would the complex logisticsof delivery and storage in these resource-poor settings. The digitization of the journals, and the selection, packaging andpricing of the content for developing-country environments, now makes it possible for WHO and its publishing partners tooffer HINARI as an invaluable virtual library to over 100 developing countries at little or no cost.In summary, HINARI is an excellent example of how content can drive connectivity. In the early days of the programme manyinstitutions were not well equipped or connected. The motivation to have access to the wealth of digital content on offerprompted institutions to arrange for connectivity and the operating costs were often borne by the institutions themselves.102

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTs2. Health centre — A facility that provides (ambulatory) medical and sanitary services to a specific group in apopulation.3. Connect — Reliable and continuous access to the Internet. In a health context, this is for obtaining information,processing and transmitting data, communicating, and providing and receiving e-health services. Broadbandconnectivity is now considered essential in order to be able to work effectively with e-health tools and servicesusing ICT.To date, no organization or institution is collecting data on the connectivity of health institutions at the internationallevel. The suggested indicators (Table 5.1) would be needed to track this target, though even these basicindicators are not always straightforward to collect. Nonetheless, the ministries of health in countries should haveup-to-date registries of public hospitals, although health centres are far more difficult to track, and particularly indeveloping countries.Table 5.1: Proposed indicators for monitoring Target 5IndicatorHospitalHealth centreElectronic health records — hospitalElectronic health records — healthcentreDescription1. Proportion of public hospitals with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband,broadband)2. Proportion of health centres with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband,broadband)3. Proportion of public hospitals using computers/the Internet to collect/process/transmit individual patient information4. Proportion of health centres using computers/the Internet to collect/process/transmit individual patient informationThere are several measurement challenges. Many developing countries do not know how many health centres thereare in the country. Furthermore, these centres may only be staffed by one person on a rotating basis and open infrequently.Depending on the centre, the availability of staff, supplies and the size of the community it serves, it may bethe case that records are not kept. Hospitals pose a different measurement challenge. The WSIS target does not differentiatebetween secondary or tertiary services. The situation is further complicated by the fact that most countrieshave public, private and charity-based hospitals, as well as public and private health centres. Many countries have aprivate healthcare system with private hospitals and clinics. The relative proportions of each vary across countries,and the exact number of non-public facilities may not be known by the ministries of health. Thus, measurement ofhealthcare entities is complicated by definitional problems, as well as, in many cases, incomplete records on thenumber of facilities.It should also be noted that there is no agreed international norm for measuring health facilities. The closest establishedand measured indicator available is that of the number of hospital beds per 10 000 population published annuallyby WHO in the World Health Statistics Database. 10 This is not the same as measuring the number of hospitals,and does not provide a breakdown by type of hospital. Health centres are not measured by WHO.A few organizations collect data on health and ICT-related indicators (Table 5.2). WHO, through its Global Observatoryfor eHealth (GOe), is currently the only international organization which focuses on trends and developments ine-health worldwide (Box 5.3). The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) is well establishedand offers detailed information at health-facility level, but only collects data in North America, although thereare plans to extend it to Europe and the Middle East. OECD data focus on OECD member countries. Thus, the GOe isthe only programme which collects data globally and with a dedicated focus on e-health in developed and developingcountries. However, its level of granularity does not extend to measurement at the individual hospital or healthcentrelevel. In summary, none of the existing data sources provide comprehensive, global coverage of the indicatorsrelevant for measuring Target 5.103

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 5.2: Prime sources of health and ICT-related dataMain areas reported and key indicatorsGlobal Observatory for eHealth (GOe) 11• Global survey data on e-health fromover 110 countries• Data on the uptake of e-healthtechnologies and policiesStrengths• Data focusing on the adoption ofe-health policies and other supportingactions to provide an enablingenvironment for growth of e-healthin countries• E-health country profiles for all participatingWHO Member States.• Data collected by survey every twoyearsWeaknesses• Granularity of the data is at thecountry level; no lower-level data(by region or by health facility)• Survey results based on self-reporting• Expert informants can change fromsurvey to surveyOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 12• Data on ICT and health at the countrylevel• Literature review and case studiesof ICTs for health in four OECDcountries• A range of ICT indicators as well ashealth-system indicators for OECDcountries. Case studies on e-healthin OECD countries• Data available only for the 30 OECDMember Sates• No comprehensive collection ofdata on the use of ICTs in the healthsectorHealthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) 13• Detailed information on ICT usageat the health-facility level, includingthe type of network connection andservice provider, for over 5 100 hospitalsand 32 000 medical facilitiesin the US and Canada• EMR adoption model — scores hospitalsbased on their level of EMRadoption• Hospital benchmark reports• Continuously updated data basedon annual survey of health facilities• Established data quality assuranceprocedures, HIMSS peer-reviewedresearch analysis• Data available only for health facilitiesin the US and Canada.Status of Target 5Internet accessCurrently, data on ICT access in health institutions are not collected internationally in a comprehensive or regularmanner. ITU carried out an ad-hoc survey in 2009 in the context of monitoring the WSIS targets. The questionnaireincluded questions on ICT access in health institutions, including by type of access. The results point to large differencesin connectivity, especially for broadband connections (Table 5.3). It is not surprising to find that connectivitytends to be higher in developed than developing countries, and usually with broadband access. There are countries,including developed countries like the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and New Zealand, where health institutionswith access to the Internet do not have a broadband connection. Internet access may also vary considerably withina country. In Thailand, for example, 90 per cent of subdistrict health centres have access to the Internet, but only 60per cent of them have broadband access.Some countries also provided information on the number of health institutions with websites. For example, Croatiareported that 64 per cent of health institutions had a website in 2009, while 18 per cent were connected to the Na-104

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsBox 5.3: The Global Observatory for eHealthIn recognition of the rapidly growing importance of the use of ICT for health services and systems, the fifty-eighth WorldHealth Assembly in May 2005 adopted Resolution WHA58.28 14 establishing an e-health strategy for WHO. The resolutionurged Member States to plan for appropriate e-health services in countries according to their needs. In the same year, WHOlaunched the Global Observatory for eHealth (GOe). The observatory is dedicated to the improvement of health systems andservices by providing Member States with strategic information and guidance on effective practices, policies and standards ine-health. It is the only observatory to monitor e-health developments in countries through surveys conducted every two years.GOe publications include: 15• eHealth Tools and Services: Needs of Member States (2006)• Building Foundations for eHealth: Progress of Member States (2007)• Building Foundations for eHealth in Europe (2008)Work is in progress on an eight-volume series based on the 2009 global survey on e-health. The first survey on m-health willbe released in summer 2010.The 2009 survey focused on new areas such as:• establishing enabling actions for e-health• trends in the uptake and application of mobile health (m-health)• the use of telehealth services and barriers to their introduction• the adoption of e-learning for health professionals and students• the transition from paper-based patient records to electronic health records• legal and ethical issues in the e-health domain.To date, GOe surveys have been conducted at the national level and the data and information sources are provided througha group of nationally recognized experts in e-health. They are usually nominated by the ministry of health and draw on theexpertise of other related sectors such as ICT, telecommunications, education, academia and research. Questions addressnational issues, as current financial resources are inadequate for carrying out the survey work at district or local level. It isanticipated that GOe, with suitable partners, will perform more detailed surveys at district level as funds become available.tional Research and Educational Network (NREN). In the Czech Republic, over 16 per cent of health institutions hada website (2008), as against five per cent in Lesotho (2007). In Hungary, half of all health institutions maintained aportal (2009), while in Paraguay a unified site operates for 88 health institutions together (representing close to eightper cent of total health institutions in 2009). In Singapore, each of the 24 hospitals reportedly had a website in 2009,but no data were available for other types of health institutions.Management of patient informationThe collection, storage and transmission of patient information can be considered as another measure of the uptakeof ICT by health facilities. Results from the WHO GOe survey 2009 demonstrate that, today, patient records are stillprimarily kept in paper format (Chart 5.1), with exactly half of the responding countries reporting that this methodwas used in more than 75 per cent of their health facilities. While 90 per cent of countries report at least some useof electronic patient records, they appear to be used intensively in only a small proportion of responding countries.Indeed, only six per cent report that over 75 per cent of health facilities are using such records (“very high” inChart 5.1). Similarly, close to 80 per cent of countries report at least some use of electronic data transmission, butonly as little as three per cent of responding countries report that over 75 per cent of health facilities are transmittingdata to other health facilities (“very high” in Chart 5.1). It is these facilities that need ICT connectivity in order tocommunicate data, so this gives an indication, but certainly not a reliable measurement, of the availability of Internetaccess in healthcare facilities.Looking at the results by World Bank income group (Chart 5.2), as may be expected, it is the high-income countrieswhich display the highest incidence of electronic patient data usage. Only countries in the high-income group reportedvery high use of electronic data formats with the ability to transmit the data electronically (i.e. indicatingthe use of Internet), with 22 per cent reporting high or very high use. Close to 90 per cent of upper-middle income105

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 5.3: Percentage of health institutions with access to the Internet, 2009**Any type of connectionBroadband onlyAndorra 100 100Bhutan 100 ...Bolivia 2 1Botswana 97 27Croatia 100 100Czech Republic 70 48Djibouti 14 14Egypt 6 1Finland 100 ...Hungary 100 100Korea (Rep.) 100 100Latvia 99 39Lesotho 6 ...Lithuania 100 65Mexico 5 ...Nauru 100 100New Zealand 100 47Paraguay 17 4Singapore* 100 ...Slovak Republic 77 77St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3 3Sweden 100 ...Thailand 91 ...Note: * Hospitals only. ** Or latest available year. The country names in this table reflect ITU conventions. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.Chart 5.1: Proportion of local healthcare facilities using paper, electronic and electronic plus transmissiblepatient information, by level of use, 2009%10090Per cent of responding countries8070605040302010Level of useNo answerNoneLowMediumHighVery high0Paper Electronic TransmissionSource: WHO GOe survey 2009.106

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTscountries report at least some electronic data transmission, compared with over 80 per cent of lower-middle incomecountries, and around 40 per cent of low-income countries. However, even in the high-income category, high andvery high use of electronic records is only just under 40 per cent, reflecting the difficulties of making the transitionfrom a paper-based to an electronic health-record system. Countries in lower-income categories show greater useof paper records and less use of electronic data and data with electronic transmission. In the low-income category,no countries reported high or very high use of electronic data; 50 per cent reported that their health institutions donot use electronic data transmission; and over 40 per cent reported that less than 25 per cent of health institutionstransmit data electronically (“low” in Chart 5.2).Policy framework indicatorsIn order to complement the limited data on ICT access and use in health institutions, this section reviews data ongovernment efforts in the adoption of foundation actions for building health-sector connectivity. Measuring whetherfoundation actions (Table 5.4) have been introduced in countries recognizes the importance of policy in developingan enabling environment for e-health.This method does not provide numerical data on, for example, the percentage of hospitals and health centres withInternet access, but gives a broader overview of the state of progress in countries, at least with respect to the effortsmade to put the framework conditions for e-health into place.Chart 5.2: Proportion of local healthcare facilities using paper, electronic and electronic plus transmissiblepatient information, by level of use, by World Bank income group*, 2009Per cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group%100806040200High-incomePaper Electronic TransmissionPer cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group% Upper-middle income100806040200Level of useNo answerNoneLowMediumHighVery highPaper Electronic TransmissionPer cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group%100806040200Lower-middle incomePaper Electronic TransmissionPer cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group%100806040200Low-incomePaper Electronic TransmissionNote: * See Annex 5.1.Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.107

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 5.4: Foundation actionsIndicatorPolicy frameworkFunding frameworkInfrastructure planningDescriptionE-health, ICT and other supporting policies such as e-government which providethe blueprint for development of e-health and the necessary connectivity in acountryFinancial resources, including any combination of government, private, publicprivatepartnership or donor funding, which support building connectivity forpublic institutions including the health sectorNational e-strategies, or "roadmaps,” which plan for the building of countryinfrastructure, including the health sectorSource: WHO.Measurement of growth in the adoption of key policies, including infrastructure policies, and of the allocation offunding resources, should provide a high-level overview of ICT development for health by country, region and globally.It is important to note, however, that while the adoption of these actions by countries is a clear signal of theirintent to connect the health sector, it does not necessarily mean that this connectivity has already been achieved.At this time, the only body collecting these data systematically and internationally, although the data are not entirelycomplete, is WHO’s GOe (Box 5.3). Although the data will provide a reliable picture of the environment and policysupport for action, it must be recognized that the final step in making progress on health-sector connectivity in acountry can only be through the joint action of the three key stakeholders, namely the ICT, finance and health sectors.An example of health-sector reforms, including initiatives to put in place an electronic health-records system,is given in Box 5.4.GOe measures a series of indicators which are considered as enablers for the introduction of ICT for health. These arelisted in Table 5.5, and preliminary results are provided in Table 5.6.National e-government policies will promote ICT access and use across the entire public sector, while national e-health policies will drive ICT uptake specifically in the health sector. Preliminary results show that a very high proportionof all responding countries (84 out of 101) have national e-government policies — 96 per cent of respondinghigh-income and upper-middle income countries, and 72 per cent of responding lower-middle and low-incomecountries (Table 5.6).The figures for national e-health policies do not look quite as positive. Of 101 responding countries, 55 report havingan e-health policy — 79 per cent of responding lower-middle and low-income countries and 32 per cent of respondingupper-middle and high-income countries. These data indicate that e-health enjoys less of a focus than other ICTpolicies and that many countries start by adopting e-government policies first.Looking at the funding support available, 63 out of 101 responding countries report donor support for e-healthdevelopment — 85 per cent of responding lower-middle and low-income countries, and 38 per cent of respondinghigh-income and upper-middle income countries. Public funding for e-health is available in 81 countries — 74 percent of responding lower-middle and low-income countries, and 96 per cent of responding high-income and uppermiddleincome countries.The aim of Target 5 is for countries to employ a strategic and sustainable approach to the introduction of connectivityfor the health sector. This is only likely to happen if countries adopt a systematic approach to deployment of ICTacross the whole public sector, and if special rates for connectivity for public-sector services are negotiated withproviders. These elements should generally be addressed nationally through e-government or e-health policies.108

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsBox 5.4: Belize — an example of a model national e-health programme in a developing country settingBackgroundThe beginnings of health-sector reform in Belize date back to 1999 when, working with a management consultancy, the newlyappointed regional health management teams identified that health-sector reform could only occur through the introduction of anational health-information system. The Ministry of Health recognized the opportunity and made a significant investment in thedevelopment of the Belize Health Information System (BHIS), an electronic health-records system developed by the country itselfand launched in 2004.The Belize National Health Information SystemBHIS works to improve the health of its population by providing comprehensive health information about patients which can beaccessed anywhere in the country by registered users as soon as the patient data have been entered into the system. System architecturefeatures include high levels of functionality, security and full interoperability. The mission is to ensure that all Belizeanshave their own individual health record. This appears to be realistic and achievable due to the relatively small population and therapid diffusion of technology in the country, and most importantly thanks to the commitment of government to the success of theprogramme.The system consists of a series of interconnected modules which form the core of a sophisticated electronic health-records systemand include:• Hospital admissions, transfer and discharge• Clinical order entry• Laboratory testing• Billing• Supply chain management• HIV/AIDS patient management.In its next strategic move, the Belize government will extend the impact of BHIS by linking all other government sources of healthinformation including Vital Statistics, Social Security and the National Health Insurance Scheme. The government’s motivation is tomaximize the sharing and use of patient data, and to improve efficiency in the deployment of human resources for health services.In 2009, it was estimated that approximately 80 per cent of encounters in the public health system were recorded and stored byBHIS. The private-sector health services displayed a slightly lower percentage, but it was still significantly high.Policy and funding environmentTo gain a better picture as to why Belize has been so successful in its mission to build a successful electronic health-records system,it is important to look at what enabling actions may have been put in place by the government. According to Belize’s response to the2005 global survey on e-health, a number of key actions were taken which helped to build the system. In 2004, Belize introducedboth a national e-policy as well as a national e-health policy. These are fundamental elements to assist in the building of e-healthinitiatives in the health sector. In addition, since 1998, e-health activities have been supported through both public and private funding,increasing the likelihood of sustainability. Citizen protection actions were introduced in 2004 in order to safeguard the privacyof patient information, in particular in the context of electronic patient records. The adoption of e-health standards to promoteinteroperability occurred in around 2005. ICT infrastructure development in the health sector is fundamental to ensuring access toICTs for health professionals in hospitals and health centres. This is supported by a National Plan for ICT Development in Health. Theplan, which sets targets for health-sector connectivity, was deployed from 2004, early on in the project.Measuring system successesSignificant successes reported by BHIS include:• Highly improved management of mother-to-child HIV transmission, lowered from 20 per cent to one per cent per annum• 90 per cent decrease in hospital cases of adverse drug reactions• Estimated decrease of over eight per cent in medical expenses thanks to increased efficiencies• H1N1 case information available in real time across the country due to efficiency in monitoring and reportingThese achievements are largely attributable to the effectiveness of the information system deployed and the staff who use it. Itcould almost be taken for granted that the connectivity which is required to run such an operation was already there. For this systemto work, the Belize government has had to connect all elements of the health system, hospitals (public and private) as well as healthcentres, so that they can all communicate with each other as one integrated system. Without this ICT connectivity a complex andsophisticated national health information system could not exist.Support for achievementsThe national government has been a strong supporter of BHIS. Furthermore, Belize has received financial and technical supportfrom the Health Metrics Network, as well as technical support from Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) and financialsupport from the inter-Caribbean country meeting to share its lessons learned with Eastern Caribbean countries.109

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 5.5: Enabling actions for ICT for healthIndicator Description (GOe definitions) 16National e-government policyNational e-health policyNational ICT in health developmentplan*Funding sources for e-health**Public fundingPrivate fundingDonor/non-public fundingPublic-private partnershipsLays out the vision and objectives for the use of ICT to exchange information,provide services and communicate with citizens, businesses andother sectors.Lays out the vision and objectives to promote ICT specifically for thehealth sectorAlso sometimes referred to as a “technology roadmap.” A plan for thenational development and deployment of ICT infrastructure, services andsystems in the health sectorCan be any combination of the following:Support through financial resources provided by government — may comefrom national, regional or district level governmentSupport through financial or in-kind services provided by the private orcommercial sectorSupport through financial or in-kind resources provided by developmentagencies, banks, foundations or other non-public funding bodies. These canbe international, regional or national bodiesJoint ventures between public organizations and private-sector companiesto work together to achieve a common goalNote: *This indicator was measured in the 2005-06 but not in 2009. **This does not cover all of the possible funding and investmentsources.Source: WHO.Table 5.6: Preliminary WHO GOe survey results 2009IndicatorTotal number of countriesreporting action (n= 101)% World Bank upper andupper-middle incomecountries (n=48)% World Bank lowermiddleand low-incomecountries (n=53)National e-government policy 84 96% (46) 72% (38)National e-health policy 55 79% (38) 32% (17)Public funding 85 96% (46) 74% (39)Private funding 38 42% (20) 34% (18)Donor / non-public funding 63 38% (18) 85% (45)Public-private partnerships 40 44% (21) 36% (19)Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.110

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsM-health and telemedicineTwo other areas that are important for the uptake of e-health in countries relate to activities in m-health and telemedicineservices. 17 It has already been noted in this chapter that m-health has huge potential as a public health andmedical practice supported by mobile devices.Chart 5.3: Countries reporting at least one m-health initiative,by World Bank income group*, 2009Per cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income groupNote: * See Annex 5.1.Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.Chart 5.4: Percentage of countries with a national telemedicinepolicy, by World Bank income group*, 2009Per cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group10090807060504030201004035302520151050High-incomeHigh-incomeNote: * See Annex 5.1.Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.UppermiddleincomeUppermiddleincomeLowermiddleincomeLowermiddleincomeLow-incomeLow-incomeThe extent to which m-health has already beenadopted by country health systems is illustratedin Chart 5.3. It shows that at least one m-healthinitiative has been implemented across the vastmajority of countries, and in most cases there aremany more. The figures range from around 90per cent of responding countries in the upper andlower-middle income groups, to about 75 per centfor the upper-middle and lower-income groups. Itis encouraging to note the absence of a dramaticdifference in reported activity between the richerand poorer countries.The existence of a national telemedicine policy isan indicator of the likelihood of a country offeringtelemedicine services to its citizens. The proportionof countries in each income group reportingthe existence of a national telemedicine policy isrelatively low: around 40 per cent of respondinghigh-income and upper-middle income countries,around ten per cent of lower-middle income countries,and around 20 per cent of low-income countries(Chart 5.4). Although telemedicine is not anew e-health service, the data indicate that muchwork will need to be done before it is integratedinto health services worldwide.Another approach to assess ICT uptake in thehealth sector would be to look at the reasonscited for not using m-health and telemedicine,which include infrastructure barriers. While thisdoes not give an indication on what proportion ofhealth centres have access to the Internet, it doesgive an indication whether infrastructure, or otherbarriers, matter for taking up this application.Infrastructure is mentioned as a barrier to implementingm-health solutions (except in the highestincome group), and the importance of this barrieris inversely related to income: the lower the incomelevel, the greater the percentage of countriesciting infrastructure as a barrier (Chart 5.5).Similarly, infrastructure is also cited as an importantbarrier to implementing telemedicinesolutions, including in the highest income group(Chart 5.6). Countries in the lower-middle incomegroup cite this barrier relatively less often thanthose in the upper-middle and low-income groups.Indeed, infrastructure is more likely to be an issuefor telehealth than for m-health services, as the111

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 5.5: Most important barriers to implementing m-health solutions, by World Bank income group*70Per cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group605040302010High-incomeUpper-middle incomeLower-middle incomeLow-income0Cost effectivenessDemandInfrastructureKnowledgeLegalOperating costsPolicyPrioritiesTechnical expertiseOtherNote: * See Annex 5.1.Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.Figure 5.6: Barriers to implementing telemedicine solutions, by World Bank income group*8070Per cent of responding countriesin each World Bank income group605040302010High-incomeUpper-middle incomeLower-middle incomeLow-income0CostDemandInfrastructureKnowledgeLegalCulturePolicyPrioritiesStandardsExpertiseOtherNote: * See Annex 5.1.Source: WHO GOe survey 2009.112

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsformer require adequate Internet access, as well as the additional hardware and software needed for the telehealthservice both at the service-provider and the patient location. The m-health infrastructure is being built by telecommunicationservice providers and only requires a mobile cellular telephone.Conclusions and recommendationsThe available data point to some progress in connecting health institutions, including in developing countries. Manycountries have also introduced the use of ICTs, for example through the connection of health institutions to HINARIor the introduction of electronic patient records, though these facilities are not yet intensively used. Over 75 per centof countries also report at least one m-health initiative, and mobile health is an area which holds great potential forfurther growth given the soaring use of mobile technologies, including in the developing world.Although incomplete, the available figures suggest there is some way to go before reaching full connectivity in healthcentres and hospitals. However, with five years left until the deadline for the target it is still possible, and likely, thatmuch can be achieved, especially since this represents a fairly distant horizon in terms of ICT advancement. If countriesfind it possible to measure connectivity in hospitals and health centres, it is most likely that significant improvementsin the proportion of these health facilities having access to the Internet will be observed over the next fiveyears. However, it is also likely these trends will tend to occur first in the major cities of developing countries, andless so in remote and isolated regions, even though ICTs can potentially bring even greater benefits in these lattergeographical areas.Substantial efforts are required if the target is to be achieved by 2015. Attention needs to be paid to ensuring thatgovernments are putting in place and implementing foundation actions such as e-government and e-health policies,which will be critical for the successful and sustainable growth of connectivity in the health sector. WHO’s GOeproposes to include a series of questions specific to this issue in the 2011 global e-health survey, while ensuring thatdefinitions and feasibility of accurate measurement are tested and piloted well in advance. WHO is also planning tocreate guidelines for the development and evaluation of e-health strategies that will provide a valuable frameworkfor the many developing countries which still may be operating in an e-health policy vacuum.Many of the indicators that could be used to measure Target 5 are broad and indirect measures. Most are such thatthe measurement would generally be made in the public health sector only. An alternative approach would be to inviteindividual countries to submit data by means of a special brief WSIS topic-specific survey conducted by WHO GOeor any other appropriate institution. This could include questions on the above indicators, as well as questions addressingnumbers of hospitals and health centres (if known) and the connectivity situation, both current and plannedby 2015. Should funding be available, the data could be collected, processed and analysed during a nine-month period.Otherwise, more current data will be available after the 2011 GOe global survey on e-health.Finally, a mix of policy recommendations is required to achieve Target 5, including:• Government support and recognitionLarge-scale national connectivity projects require the full support and commitment of governments in orderto succeed. The government needs to recognize the importance of connectivity for the health sector, and thebenefits it will bring for the health of citizens, not to mention the potential for cost savings through increasedefficiencies. This support will need to be reflected in the policy environment as well as the funding environment.• Creating an enabling environmentThe importance of an enabling environment to build connectivity and e-health has been emphasized throughoutthis chapter. E-government, e-health, e-strategies and funding approaches need to be in place to create anenvironment for growth in ICT connectivity.• Agreement by partiesAny significant connectivity initiatives in the e-health domain will need to be agreed on and governed by threeministries: health, ICT/communications, and finance. An understanding and agreement on the mission, strategicapproaches, costs and implementation time-line must be shared by all parties if the project is to succeed.113

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• FundingOne of the biggest impediments to the spread of e-health is insufficient funding allocation to achieve the objectives.Governments must be confident that e-health projects will be adequately funded. Not all sources willnecessarily come from public funds. Donor or private funds may be available, as well as public-private partnerships,which are central to the mission of connecting health facilities with ICT.114

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsNotes1This chapter was prepared by Misha Kay with Najeeb Al-Shorbaji, Joan Dzenowagis, Marina Takane, Jonathan Santos and Diana Zandifrom the World Health Organization, Geneva, in collaboration with ITU. The authors are staff members of the World Health Organization.The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policiesof the World Health Organization.2See WSIS Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, 2005, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/outcome/booklet/tunis-agenda_D.html , § 90g).3See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c6.4See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c2, § 9c).5See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c7.6WHO Global Observatory for eHealth 2009 survey http://www.who.int/goe/data/global_e-health_survey_2009_en.pdf.7UNAIDS South Africa Country Response http://www.unaids.org/en/CountryResponses/Countries/south_africa.asp.8HINARI: http://www.who.int/hinari/en/.9European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies: http://www.euro.who.int/observatory.10World Health Statistics, Health workforce infrastructure, essential medicines, WHO 2009http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?indicators=%5bIndicator%5d.%5bHSR%5d.Members.11http://www.who.int/goe/en/.12http://www.oecd.org.13http://www.himss.org.14http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA58/WHA58_28-en.pdf.15http://www.who.int/goe/publications.16GOe glossary of survey terms: http://www.who.int/goe/data/Global_eHealth_Survey-Glossary-ENGLISH.pdf.17Telemedicine (also known as telehealth) involves the delivery of healthcare services where distance is a critical factor. The telemedicineapproach uses ICTs for the exchange of information for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diseases and injuries, for research andevaluation, and for the continuing education of healthcare providers (WHO Global Observatory for eHealth 2009).115

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesGermanakos, P., C. Mourlas and G. Samaras (2005), “A Mobile Agent Approach for Ubiquitous and PersonalizedeHealth Information Systems,” Proceedings of the Workshop on “Personalization for e-Health” of the 10thInternational Conference on User Modeling (UM’05). Edinburgh, July 29, 2005, pp. 67-70.ITU (2010), Measuring the Information Society 2010, ITU, Geneva.WHO (2006), Building Foundations for e-health — Progress of Member States, WHO Global Observatory foreHealth, WHO, Geneva.116

Target 5: Connect health centres and hospitals with ICTsAnnex 5.1: Breakdown of responding countries in the 2009 GOe global survey on e-health, by World Bank income group 1-4WB1 — High incomeAustriaBelgiumBrunei DarussalamCanadaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIsraelKorea (Rep.)KuwaitMaltaNew ZealandNorwayOmanPortugalSlovak RepublicSloveniaSpainSwitzerlandUnited KingdomWB3 — Lower-middle incomeAlbaniaArmeniaAzerbaijanBelizeBhutanCameroonCape VerdeCongoEgyptIndonesiaIran (I.R.)JordanLesothoMaldivesMoldovaMongoliaMoroccoPakistanParaguayPhilippinesS. Tomé & PrincipeSri LankaSudanSyriaThailandTongaTurkmenistanNote: The country names in this table reflect ITU conventions.WB2 — Upper-middle incomeArgentinaBelarusBotswanaBrazilBulgariaColombiaDominican RepublicFijiLatviaLebanonLibyaLithuaniaMauritiusMexicoMontenegroPanamaPeruPolandSeychellesTurkeyWB4 — Low incomeBangladeshBeninBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaChadComorosEritreaEthiopiaGambiaGhanaGuinea-BissauKyrgyzstanLao P.D.R.MadagascarMaliMauritaniaNepalNigerSenegalSierra LeoneTogoUzbekistanYemenZambiaZimbabwe117

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesTarget 6: Connect all local and centralgovernment departments and establishwebsites and e-mail addresses 1IntroductionThe use of information and communication technology (ICT) in government — e-government — can be key to achievingspecific social and economic development goals. In recent years, governments have increasingly begun to recognizethe role ICTs can play in promoting effective and speedy solutions for development through the delivery ofpublic services. There is no doubt that e-government can contribute effectively to creating an enabling environmentfor development, by enhancing transparency and accountability and promoting good governance in the public sector.As such, e-government is a key tool for public-sector reform towards better governance (see Box 6.1), which isone of the objectives of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. Accordingly, many countries are reforming andmodernizing their public-sector systems. This involves putting in place ICT infrastructure (e-government readiness)and promoting the use of ICTs (e-governance) in order to maximize impact and increase public-sector efficiency. Indeed,while investment in infrastructure is necessary for the diffusion of ICTs, the impact will ultimately depend onthe use that is being made of them.The need to employ ICTs for development, including in the public sector, has also been emphasized in internationalforums. The United Nations has been an integral part of multistakeholder efforts to advance international cooperationand development for the promotion of e-government, including through innovative ICT-enabled e-governmentsolutions and the development of global information repositories and databases. These endeavours have served tocreate and exploit synergies among different stakeholders, and to identify good practices that will advance the visionand concrete agenda set by WSIS.The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) has taken the lead in promoting e-governmentdevelopment in the context of WSIS Action Lines С1 (The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholdersin the promotion of ICTs for development), C7 (ICT applications, including e-government) and C11 (Internationaland regional cooperation). In following the progress of Member States towards the WSIS objectives, UNDESA119

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsfocuses on how governments use electronic or mobile tools and applications to improve the provision of informationand services to their citizens and enhance the functioning of the public sector.The WSIS vision of e-government urges Member States to implement e-government solutions aimed at using ICTs ingovernment and in public-service delivery. More specifically, the WSIS e-government objectives call on governmentsto:• implement e-government strategies focusing on applications aimed at innovating and promoting transparencyin public administrations and democratic processes, improving efficiency and strengthening relations with citizens;• develop national e-government initiatives and services, at all levels, adapted to the needs of citizens and business,to achieve a more efficient allocation of resources and public goods;• support international cooperation initiatives in the field of e-government, in order to enhance transparency,accountability and efficiency at all levels of government. 2The WSIS e-government objectives reflect a growing recognition on the part of policy-makers that the judicious useof ICTs can play a crucial role in pursuing the aims of the public sector and contribute towards achieving social andeconomic development goals. The underlying principle of e-government has served to improve the internal workingsof the public sector by reducing financial costs and transaction times and strengthening linkages between differentgovernment agencies, the private sector and civil society for the effective delivery of public services.Box 6.1: The benefits of e-governmentThe multistakeholder effort at WSIS recognized that access to information and knowledge is critical for development. ICTs cutacross sectors and provide support to key governance processes that are critical for improved functioning of the public sectorand for good governance. The 24/7 availability of ICT tools enables faster and more efficient communication not only betweenthe public sector and citizens, but also between government agencies, processes and systems. Thus, ICTs help governmentsoperate more efficiently, improve the delivery of public services and enable more widespread information dissemination tocitizens.E-government can facilitate communication and improve coordination between authorities at different levels of government,including within organizations. This is critical for improved policy coordination and better communication of the resulting decisions,which, in turn, is very important for policy coherence and achieving policy objectives. Increased transparency shouldalso strengthen trust.E-government can enhance the speed and efficiency of operations, by streamlining processes, lowering costs, improvingresearch capabilities and improving documentation and record-keeping. By making more information publicly available,e-government solutions reduce uncertainty for other socio-economic actors, thus enhancing their resource-allocation decisions.E-government enables greater inclusion and participation of citizens in policy processes. By enhancing the government’s abilityto request, receive and take on board feedback from constituents, policy measures can be better tailored to meet theneeds and priorities of citizens. Thus, e-government enables more participatory and potentially more democratic governance.Best practices indicate that the focus on service delivery is becoming intertwined with an emphasis on achieving cost savingsand enhancing efficiency in the public sector. By lowering application processing and waiting times, innovative e-governmentfor-businesssolutions can reduce the cost of complying with government regulations, lighten the administrative burden forbusinesses and cut through red tape.Thus, innovation in e-government solutions at all levels of government enhances the speed and efficiency of public-sector operations,streamlines processes, lowers costs, improves service-delivery capabilities and improves documentation and recordkeeping.At the same time, the underlying principle of e-government also serves to strengthen linkages between differentgovernment agencies, the private sector and civil society.Source: UNDESA.120

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesMeasuring Target 6 — Proposed indicatorsTarget 6, namely “Connect all local and central government departments and establish websites and e-mail addresses,”can be interpreted as comprising three distinct goals:i) Connect central and local government departmentsii) Establish websites for central and local government departmentsiii) Establish e-mail addresses for central and local government departments.The conceptual framework of the target stemmed from an increasing recognition of the value of integrating technologyinto government so as to find more effective and speedy solutions for more efficient functioning of governments,improved delivery of basic services and wider dissemination of information to the citizen.In establishing the WSIS target for e-government, it was deemed important that national and local/municipal governmentsand departments should implement the use of ICTs, be connected online and make the relevant publicofficials’ e-mail information available to the citizen as a first step towards providing online information.However, as is the case for the other WSIS targets, it was not clear exactly how the terms “connecting” central andlocal governments or “establishing a website” were to be interpreted. For example, government offices could haveInternet access and/or an established website at varying levels of use. A registered entry point for a ministry or governmentdepartment does not mean that all its offices and staff are fully equipped with ICTs, or that links have beenestablished between different government entities. Similarly, simply having e-mail contact information posted on agovernment website is not sufficient to allow a thorough assessment of the website in question in terms of effectiveservice delivery. Experience shows that countries utilize ICTs differently. Assessments based on ICT use show that theestablishment of a website without appropriate and useful navigation, interaction or transaction capability may nothave any impact in terms of developing effective e-government solutions.The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (see Box 2 in the introductory chapter of this report), which wasset up in the wake of WSIS, through its Task Group on E-government Indicators (TGEG), is working on the developmentof a global framework for measuring e-government, including recommendations on a proposed set of indicatorswhich can form a core group to be collected by Member States. Such an approach is important in order to rootout inconsistencies in definitions, methodology, reporting and monitoring of e-government indicators across — andbetween — national and local governments, and will lend consistency to international and national benchmarkingefforts. A consistent global approach will also support the application of lessons learnt and best practices in e-governmentdevelopment around the world.Based on the Partnership’s ongoing work, the following key indicators are proposed for measuring progress towardsTarget 6. The proposed indicators consider basic access to and use of ICTs in government, as well as the role of thegovernment as a provider of public information and services. The suggestions also take into consideration the workaccomplished at the regional level by the Working Group on ICT Measurement of the ECLAC Statistical Conference ofthe Americas (SCA-ECLAC), which has been discussing a core list of e-government indicators [OSILAC, 2009] [OSILAC,2010]. The proposed indicators are based on a straightforward interpretation of the current wording of Target 6, andthe review of the target in the following section follows this interpretation. The indicators will be further refined indue course, as part of the ongoing work of the Partnership.Proposed indicators:Connect central and local government departments1. Percentage of government employees using the Internet2. Percentage of government employees using computers3. Percentage of government institutions with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband)4. Percentage of government institutions using corporate networks (LAN, WAN, intranet, extranet)Establish central and local government websites5. Percentage of central government institutions with established websites 36. Percentage of local government institutions with established websites 3121

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsEstablish e-mail contact information7. Percentage of government institutions with online e-mail contact information 38. Percentage of government institutions offering online services, by type of service (interactive, transactional,connected)Whereas proposed indicators 1-7 are self-evident, an explanatory note is required for indicator 8. Improving public-servicedelivery is a key objective of most e-government development programmes. The initial focus of e-government hasgiven way to the notion of development of coordinated services such as one-stop shop services to citizens and businesses.In this context, it is important to assess the extent of online public services offered by countries around the world.For the purposes of assessing the WSIS target, indicator 8 shall also be broken down by level of complexity of serviceand by type of service:• Level of complexity of service:- Basic level: Accessing general information about the institutions, services offered, requirements and/or documentation;requesting information by e-mail- Intermediate level: Receiving answers to e-mail/phone inquiries; downloading forms (only); downloading andsending forms (document attachments)- Advanced level: Completing/lodging online forms; making online payments (bills, taxes, health, licences, certificates);obtaining official certificates (through certification or electronic signature).• Type of service, for citizens and companies:- Paying taxes- Submitting requests / bids for service- Citizen participation (vote system, public queries)- Filing reports, complaints and claims- Health services- Education services- Social security services- Justice services- Labour mediation- Online training- Companies register- Other.Status of Target 6i) Connect central and local government departmentsThis component of the target is assessed by looking at the percentage of government employees using the Internet,the percentage of government employees using computers, the percentage of government institutions with Internetaccess, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) and the percentage of government institutions using corporatenetworks (LAN,WAN, intranet, extranet).Table 6.1 presents the percentage of government entities with Internet access in 2009 for a few selected countries.As can be seen, most of them reported 100 per cent of government entities with Internet access. With regard to theadoption of newer technologies, whereas developed economies with high rates of access to ICTs such as Denmark,Republic of Korea, Singapore and the United Kingdom indicate 100 per cent access to broadband connectivity, insome countries such as Albania and Lithuania, the rate is much lower.Internationally comparable data on the type of government connection (broadband or other), the use of networkssuch as LAN or WAN, and the extent to which government employees are actually using ICTs such as computers122

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesTable 6.1: Percentage of government entities with Internet access, 2009*Country Any type of connection Broadband onlyAlbania 93 58Andorra 100 100Australia 100 ...Bhutan 100 ...Bolivia 100 ...Brunei 100 100Bulgaria 100 40Canada 100 ...Colombia 100 ...Croatia 100 100Czech Republic 99 94Denmark 100 100Djibouti 100 100Egypt 67 49Finland 100 ...Hungary 97 87Korea (Rep.) 100 100Latvia 100 ...Lithuania 100 66Mexico 87 ...Myanmar 100 ...Nauru 100 100Paraguay 100 60Singapore 100 100Thailand 100 100Turkey 75 ...United Kingdom 100 100United States 100 ...Note: * Or latest available year. Includes estimates. “...”: data not available.Source: ITU and national sources.and the Internet, are scarce. While the data presented in Table 6.1 are indicative of government entities’ access toInternet, it is not known how the Internet is being utilized. Available figures on Internet and broadband penetration(see the Chapter on Target 10) suggest that overall government access and use of ICTs is still rather limited in manydeveloping countries.The effectiveness of ICT for development is a function of the appropriate patterns of ICT use. Not surprisingly,e-government development in a government entity with only one computer connected has been found to befar less advanced than in government entities where all staff have access to computers. Similarly, how thedifferent government entities are connected to each other is often the determinant of effective solutions ine-government.123

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 6.2: The use of ICT in government, New Zealand, 2008Organization size(No. of employees)No. of responding .organizationsServersDesktops/laptops< 50 10 41 29450-99 6 79 479100-499 36 1 503 10 079500-999 14 1 570 8 7301000-4999 29 6 243 53 6165000 or more 10 4 878 68 516Organization typeCentral government 93 11 726 124 723State-owned enterprise 12 2 588 16 991Overall 105 14 314 141 714Source: New Zealand State Services Commission report. Government Use of ICT 2008.http://www.e.govt.nz/resources/research/ict-survey-2008/govt-ict-survey-2008.pdf. p 16. Accessed 22 November 2009.Comparable data on the use of ICTs in government are rare. A few surveys, mostly in developed countries, offerpointers to the use of ICTs in national governments. For example, the New Zealand Government Use of ICT Survey2008 provides information about the state of ICT use in order to inform government decisions and monitor progressin how ICTs are supporting the goals of efficiency in government (Table 6.2). The survey was administered by theState Services Commission and covered 163 state-sector organizations. Of these, 144 were central government organizationsand 19 state-owned enterprises. The overall response rate was 64 per cent, but was somewhat higherfor larger organizations (95 per cent for organizations with more than 1 000 employees and 22 per cent for organizationswith less than 50 employees). The results illustrate that, after the initial rush by countries to adopt ICTs ingovernment, a more systematic effort is being made at this second stage to ascertain how ICTs are being used bygovernment departments and ministries. Though sporadic, these surveys suggest that, thus far, the potential synergiescreated by use of ICTs in governments have been exploited only to a limited extent.ii) Establish central and local government websitesSetting up a website is the entry point for governments to move online, and a basis for developing more sophisticatedonline services. The indicator comprises the percentage of central government departments with established websitesand the percentage of local government departments with established websites.Central government departmentsA review of progress on the establishment of central government websites shows that the pattern of e-governmentdevelopment in the last few years has been one of expansion and consolidation. Considerable progress has beenmade by governments worldwide since the second phase of WSIS in Tunis towards providing information and servicesthrough the use of ICTs. As e-government services have continued to expand around the world, website assessmentindicates that the majority of the UN Member States have vigorously embraced electronic service delivery.Progress on achievement of the WSIS goal of establishing national websites has been rapid. Based on the UNDESAsurvey findings, at the level of central governments, no fewer than 189 of the 192 UN Member States had set upgovernment websites by 2009 (Table 6.3).In most developed countries, online presence was initially characterized by the development of a nationalhomepage as the point of entry. As e-government endeavours advanced, this gave way to integrated portals,in some cases with enormous amounts of information and services. Often entitled the Official Governmentsite, Gateway to Government, or Government Electronic Portal, the evolution of these integrated portals in the124

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesTable 6.3: Countries with government websites, 2003 and 20092003 2009Countries with central government websites 173 189Countries without central government websites 18 3Total UN Member States 191 192*Note: *On 28 June 2006, Montenegro was accepted as a United Nations Member State, bringing the total UN Member States to 192.Source: [UNDESA, 2003] and [UNDESA, 2010].past few years reflects increasing attention to user-friendliness for the convenient delivery of information andservices.In some cases, national portals were consolidated in conjunction with standalone websites as an increasing numberof countries opted to establish separate, but connected, e-government portals, providing a one-stop-shop windowfor easy access to all public services. For example, in 2005, the Government of Malta had two separate websitesaimed at different sets of users: one providing information, and one offering online services. Since then, the countryhas moved forward in consolidating its online services into an integrated portal bringing together all e-governmentservices and offering quick, convenient and personalized access to public electronic services.Some countries have opted for one national site as the main gateway, with links to other service delivery portalsaimed at different users (for example the U.S. FirstGov portal, http://www.firstgov.gov, and in Singapore,http://www.gov.sg).In another model of e-government, some countries have implemented national online presence with separate portalsdesigned to offer different access points for different audiences. For example, Norway has the official governmentsite, described as your gateway to the public sector in Norway (http://norge.no), and another government websitefor information from the government and the ministries, (http://www.regjeringen.no) which provides public informationand services on a wide range of issues such as agriculture, asylum and refugee policy, taxes, the economy, etc.Many developing countries have also chosen this audience-targeted portal approach. For example, Mauritius(http://www.gov.mu) has set up dedicated subportals for citizens and the business sectors.In some countries, instead of the national government website or portal serving as a single point of entry, the Headof State website serves this purpose, with links to other departments. For example, Algeria has the President’s webpage(http://www.el-mouradia.dz/francais/Sommaire.html) with links to national institutions such as the Presidencyof the Republic, the National People’s Assembly, the National Council and the various ministries. In other instances,Head of State websites are provided in addition to a national homepage or a national portal. By 2008, 124 countriesout of the 192 UN Member States had a Head of State website, though in many cases in addition to the nationalgovernment website.In most countries, many government ministries/departments are online, too. By 2008, some 82 per cent of all countrieshad established one or more sectoral websites for the ministries of finance, education, health, social welfareand labour. In around three quarters of the 192 UN Member States, non-executive branches of governments werealso online (Chart 6.1).As with national homepages/central portals, there is no discernible pattern to the establishment of departmental servicesonline. Models vary according to each country’s vision, strategy and needs. Some countries have set up links to thenational portal; others have done so to the Head of State website, where no national portal exists. A few have independentstandalone ministry/department websites which may also serve as the country’s entry point. In Angola, for example,there is no single national website; instead, there are standalone websites for the National Assembly, the ConstitutionalCommission, the National Police, the National Bank of Angola, the Radio and the TV, and several ministries.125

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 6.1: Government ministries and departments with a website, 2008Number18016014012010080604020Number of countries Per cent of UN Member States %1009080706050403020100Government ministries / departmentsNon-executive branches of government0Source: [UNDESA, 2008].Table 6.4: Government ministries connected to the national homepage, 2009Number of ministries linked to the national homepage0 1-5 6-10 More than 10Number of countries 52 13 9 118Percentage of total 27% 7% 5% 61%Source: [UNDESA, 2010].The number of online departments varies across countries as well. In larger and more advanced countries, all departmentsare online. In developing countries where e-government has not yet fully taken root, only a few individualdepartments may be online, indicating little synergy. In such cases, the lack of a national website prevents countriesfrom enjoying the benefits of e-government that would stem from effective integration of back-end ministries anddepartments.In this context, a review carried out by UNDESA of Member States’ progress in interlinking ministries and othergovernment departments shows a mixed picture (Table 6.4). While there has been much progress in establishingwebsites, less appears to have been done in linking together government departments to improve their combinedefficiency and enhance synergies. For example, whereas the majority (61 per cent) of countries had more than 10ministries/departments connected to the country’s homepage or main portal, in almost one-third of the countriesnone were connected, and another seven per cent had only one to five ministries connected. This suggests that effortsto link up various government departments are still at an early stage worldwide.126

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesLocal government departmentsWhereas rapid progress has been made in establishing national government websites, the same does not hold trueat the local level. At the same time, it should be noted that data on local government online are less readily availablethan for the national government. Local governments are simply not online, due to a lack of resources, slow implementationof the overall e-government programme or lack of an integrated e-government development. Where localgovernments have come online, the strategy has followed two distinct paths. Local government websites are eitherlinked from the national webpage, or they exist as standalone sites, delivering services at the local level according tothe country’s constitutional and political governance.By 2008, more than half of all countries had one or more local government sites connected via the national website(111 countries, or 58 per cent of the 192 UN Member States [UNDESA, 2008]). In many of these, especially developedcountries, local-level information and services were also available via the integrated services portals, as indicated above.Looking at the level of municipalities, [Holzer and Kim, 2007] examined digital governance in a selected number oflarge cities in the 100 “most wired” economies. The study evaluated the official websites of each of these cities intheir native languages. In 2007, 86 of the 100 cities selected were found to have official municipal websites, andSeoul, Hong Kong, Helsinki, Singapore and Madrid achieved the highest evaluation score. The study found substantialregional disparities, even though these appear to ease somewhat over time. In 2007, 50 per cent of the cities selectedin Africa had established official city websites (compared to only 29 per cent in 2005). In Asia, the figure increasedfrom 78 per cent in 2005 to 89 per cent in 2007. By 2007, 70 per cent of the cities selected in North America hadestablished official city websites. In Europe, South America, and Oceania, 100 per cent of the selected cities had theirown official website.iii) Establish email contact and provide online government servicesThe fact that a government department has set up a website is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for effectivee-government. Effective e-government is not achieved if the site does not include any information and featuresto promote online public services. Collecting information about the types of services offered through the websitesis, therefore, crucial for assessing and identifying the potential impact of e-government. Indeed, the usefulness of apublic website depends primarily on the services offered (Box 6.2).The UNDESA Global E-Government Readiness Survey monitors the 192 UN Member States in terms of their state ofe-government readiness. The survey is a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments toprovide information and services as they progress towards higher levels of digitized public-service delivery, and anappraisal of the use of e-government for the delivery of social services to the citizen.The assessment of government websites is based upon a four-stage model of e-government development, which isascending in nature, each stage building upon the previous level of a state’s online services. The model defines stagesof e-readiness according to the degree of sophistication of the services offered. The websites are assessed on the basisof criteria such as the range of features available on the national portal or an official homepage; links to ministries/departments; current and archived information, such as policies, laws and regulation, newsletters and downloadabledatabases; and more sophisticated interactive and transactional services. The stages are: Stage I: Emerging (wherewebsite information is mostly static and/or unidirectional, with information flowing essentially from government tothe citizen); Stage II: Enhanced (online services of the government enter the interactive mode, with services to enhanceconvenience for the citizen); Stage III: Transactional (two-way interaction and transactional services online);and Stage IV: Connected (including features that allow citizens to communicate their views and opinions on publicpolicy issues).A review of the type of services reveals that not only have countries come online during the past few years, but theyhave expanded and consolidated their e-services. First-level participatory features such as contact information or e-mail are increasingly the norm, as more and more countries around the world take the first online step towards promotingtransparency and accountability in the public sector and allowdirect online citizen contact with the relevantpublic official. By 2008, 136 countries (out of the 192 UN Member States) had e-mail information available on theirnational website, while additional contact information, such as telephone number/fax number, was available in 110countries in 2008 and in 159 countries by 2009.127

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 6.2: Selected e-government transactional services, 2008 and 2009Number of countries452008 20094035302520151050Online formsubmissionOnline paymentby cardOnline payment ofindividual registrations /permitsOnline biddingfor publiccontractsOnline trackingof permitsSource: [UNDESA, 2008,) and [UNDESA, 2010].In regard to the more sophisticated services in Stage III, the availability of selected online transactional services offeredby countries on their websites is presented in Chart 6.2. In 2008, online form submission was the most widelyavailable service, being reported in 39 countries (one-fifth of all 192 UN Member States), and 31 countries offered usersthe possibility to make online payments with credit or debit cards. For each of the services for which two years ofdata are available, there is an increase in the number of countries offering them. Online tracking of permits remainedthe least common service, being offered in 11 countries in 2008, and 21 countries in 2009.An important aspect of Stage IV (Connected) is the assessment of the government’s capability and capacity to providewebsite features for citizen participation in public policy-making. By enhancing government’s ability to request,receive and take on board feedback from constituents, policy measures can be better tailored to meet the needsand priorities of citizens. Online provision can be a catalyst for e-inclusion by offering new and better services. Inother words, e-government can contribute to more participatory and potentially more democratic governance. Inthis context, it is important to assess how many countries are actively using ICTs for inclusive e-government. Someprogress has been made in the provision of more mature e-government services (Table 6.5). However, much of thisis confined to the more developed economies. Whereas a quarter of the countries have some kind of a statementof policy encouraging citizen participation, less than half of these countries actually provide mechanisms for formalconsultation and only nine per cent of them provide any feedback to the citizen.Table 6.5: Online services related to citizen participation, 2009Source: UNDESA E-Government Survey 2010.Statement or policy .encouraging citizen .participationFormal online .consultationFeedback on policies throughthe online consultationNumber of countries 53 21 18Percentage of total 28% 11% 9%128

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesBox 6.2: The level of e-government services in the EUThe EU assesses e-government according to a five-stage maturity model reflecting the ways in which businesses and citizenscan interact with public authorities. It distinguishes the following stages: (i) Information, (ii) One-way interaction, (iii) Two-wayinteraction, (iv) Transaction, and (v) Targetization. [European Commission, 2009]Many European countries have already reached the third and the fourth levels, offering the possibility of two-way interactionsand transactions. Examples of services on offer in these levels include the availability of electronic forms for most services, andfull electronic case handling, where the user applies for and receives the service online without any additional paperwork. Inthe EU model, the fifth level, targetization, provides an indication of the extent to which front and back offices are integrated,data are re-used and services are delivered proactively. The fourth and fifth levels are jointly referred to as “full online availability”.A key indicator used to assess the fourth and fifth stages of the e-government maturity model is the percentage of full onlineavailability based on 20 basic public services for citizens and enterprises, including income taxes, corporate taxes, job searchservices, car registration, enrolment in higher education, health-related services and social contributions for employees. Thefour leading European Union nations are Austria, Malta, Portugal and the United Kingdom, each having achieved 100 per centonline availability in 2009 (Chart 1 Box 6.2).Chart 1 Box 6.2: Percentage of full online availability of 20 basic public services, Europe%100806020092007EU 2009 average: 71 %EU 2007average: 59 %40200AustriaMaltaPortugalUnited KingdomSwedenSloveniaEstoniaFinlandDenmarkIrelandFranceNorwaySpainNetherlandsGermanyBelgiumItalyLuxembourgLatviaHungaryCzech Rep.LithuaniaIcelandSlovak Rep.PolandCyprusGreeceRomaniaBulgariaCroatiaSwitzerlandSource: Eurostat, e-Government Statistics DatabaseWhereas most governments have developed websites and are increasingly providing public services online, less isknown about how these services are being used. Information on the uptake of e-government services remains scant,but some insights can be gained from regional or country-level surveys which assess how online services are beingused.Use of government online servicesHow citizens and businesses have made use of online government services is illustrated in Box 6.3. The information isbased on the core ICT household and business indicators developed by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Developmentand collected at the international level by ITU, UNCTAD and Eurostat.129

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 6.3: Use of e-government services by citizens and businessesAs most governments have developed websites and are increasingly providing public services online, it is important to knowhow these services are being used by individuals and businesses. As can be seen from Chart 1 Box 6.3, in Europe the proportionof Internet users interacting with government institutions ranges from over 80 per cent in Iceland to over nine per centin Serbia. For non-European economies, the numbers tend to be lower, ranging from 31 per cent in New Zealand (in 2006) toclose to three per cent in Azerbaijan.In countries which are in the vanguard of e-government, the uptake of e-government by businesses is much higher than bythe citizen. For businesses using government online services, a higher percentage of such enterprises interact with publicadministrations than do individuals, partly because businesses, in general, have greater Internet access and tend to bemore connected than individuals. Since the use of ICTs for business offers the opportunity to increase efficiency, includingthrough automation, it is to be expected that businesses use e-government services more than the citizen. In the EuropeanUnion in 2008, 93 per cent of businesses (with 10 or more employees) had Internet connections, compared to 60 per centof households. 4Between 2004 and 2009, the proportion of businesses in EU countries interacting with government organizations over theInternet was higher, and growing at a faster rate, than the proportion of individuals. Overall, 70 per cent of EU businesseseither obtained information or downloaded official forms from government websites in 2009 (Table 1 Box 6.3). The numbersremain relatively lower for e-procurement, with less than 15 per cent of enterprises submitting a proposal using an electronictendering system.The use of online government services by business increases with the number of employees (Chart 2 Box 6.3), except in Icelandwhere enterprises with 50-249 employees made greater use of online government services than enterprises with lessthan 250 employees. The numbers tend to be higher in European than non-European economies for which data are available.The United Arab Emirates, New Zealand, Singapore and Brazil are among the highest ranked non-European economies.Chart 1 Box 6.3: Percentage of Internet users interacting with general government organizations online, 2009*90 %80706050403020100IcelandDenmarkNorwayFinlandSwedenLuxembourgFranceNetherlandsEstoniaAustriaSloveniaSpainGermanyCyprusPortugalIrelandUnited KingdomSlovak Rep.MaltaBelgiumHungaryCzech Rep.LatviaItalyPolandLithuaniaNew ZealandGreeceCroatiaTurkeyCanadaTFYR MacedoniaBulgariaBrazilRomaniaUnited Arab EmiratesHong Kong, ChinaRep. of KoreaSerbiaMauritiusEgyptAzerbaijanNote: * Or most recent year available.Source: ITU based on [Eurostat, 2009] and national sources.130

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesBox 6.3: Use of e-government services by citizens and businesses (continued)Table 1 Box 6.3: Enterprises using the Internet for interaction with public authorities, EU countries, 2009For obtaininginformationSource: Eurostat, e-Government Statistics Database.Percentage of enterprises using the InternetFor obtainingformsFor returningfilled in formsFor full .electronic casehandlingFor .e-procurementAll enterprises 70 70 60 48 12Large enterprises 85 84 79 63 21Medium-sized78 79 72 57 16enterprisesSmall enterprises 62 61 51 40 10Chart 2 Box 6.3: Percentage of enterprises using the Internet for obtaining information from general governmentorganizations, 2008 or 2007*%1009080706050403020100All 250+ employees 50-249 employees 10-49 employees 0-9 employeesIcelandDenmarkSloveniaIrelandLuxembourgSlovak Rep.NetherlandsSwedenEstoniaItalyMaltaUnited Arab EmiratesAustriaNorwayCzech Rep.PortugalFranceNew ZealandGreeceCyprusUnited KingdomSingaporeBrazilSpainPolandHungaryBulgariaLatviaGermanyQatarRomaniaTFYR MacedoniaKazakhstanEgyptJordanNote: * Includes estimates.Source: UNCTAD, Information Economy Database.131

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsConclusions and recommendationsRecent trends in ICT use by governments point to mixed progress in e-government development worldwide. However,in terms of the use of ICTs in government institutions, for countries where data are available (mainly developedcountries), most government departments have access to the Internet. Less is known about the level of Internetaccess in governments in the rest of the world. Among developing countries, given the relatively low Internet user/subscriber penetration it can be assumed that many government offices are not yet fully connected, in particular tobroadband Internet.Comparable data on ICT use within government departments are scarce, especially on the type and quality of theconnectivity, the extent of its diffusion (for example, the proportion of staff in government departments who havebeen connected) and the actual use that is made of the connectivity by governments. Relatively little informationexists on how ICTs are used, for example, for reforming and restructuring the interdepartmental organization of differentlevels of government. The lack of data on the use of ICTs by the government sector, and its impact, remains amajor barrier to an effective review and analysis of e-government efforts, which would be necessary to inform policydecisions. It also limits the scope of learning from, and employing, best practices, underscoring the need to undertakerepresentative surveys.Considerable progress has nevertheless been made on establishing public websites, one of the main components ofTarget 6. Today, almost all countries have a central government website providing basic information online; mostof them also have contact details; and a large number of countries are on their way to provide more sophisticatedinteractive and transactional services online.While substantial progress has been made in recent years in establishing government websites, no single definitivepattern of e-government development has emerged. Assessment of countries’ websites reveals a wide range of e-government strategies as evidenced by varying conceptual frameworks, online entry points, levels of features andservices offered and visual representations. Even countries at a similar level of income or development appear toconduct e-government programmes differently. The common thread between the various approaches is that thewide variation among — and between — the national and departmental website offerings appears to be a functionof the level of economic, technological and human resource development in a country.Further, wide disparity remains within and between countries. A major global challenge in the utilization of e-governmentfor economic and social development is inequitable access to and use of ICTs. Advanced countries which are inthe vanguard, with successful programmes, have developed these on the solid foundations of infrastructure and humanresource development. Though most developing countries have followed suit in the adoption of ICTs for publicservicedelivery, challenges remain in the form of weak capacity, ad hoc online presence and lack of full use of ICTs.There is little systematic collection of local government website data. Part of the problem lies in the fact that relativelyfew local governments are as yet fully online. This is especially true in the developing countries, where lackof resources — financial, human and material — is a constraint. Where data exist at the local level, it is not strictlycomparable across countries due to differences in the political and economic regimes of national governments whichdetermine what service is local.One of the challenges for monitoring the efficacy of e-government development is that most of the statistics arederived from supply-side indicators and often from website assessments alone. Little information is available yetregarding the demand side of e-government. Few surveys exist which would indicate “how” citizens use these servicesand “what” they see as maximizing public value. Only a few studies have been carried out, mostly in advancedeconomies. There is even less available in terms of impact assessment of national e-government programmes.In order to achieve Target 6 on e-government by 2015, action needs to be taken at both the national and internationallevels. Specific recommendations include:• development of a strategic framework for integrated e-government development aimed at harnessing the synergiesof new technologies in government departments and entities;132

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addresses• greater focus by Member States on the development and implementation of policies to increase the diffusionof ICT infrastructure, in particular broadband connectivity;• dissemination of best practices and lessons learnt from experiences in effective e-government and e-governanceworldwide;• development and formal adoption by Member States of ICT-for-development and e-government plans thatinclude access targets, within a holistic framework of the Millennium Development Goals;• continued follow-up on e-government development at the local level, where data are weak and compliance issporadic. In this context, efforts are needed at the policy and programme level by the whole range of stakeholdersto support Member States in highlighting the central role played by ICTs and e-government for development,in disseminating information through various international forums on local e-government development,and in supporting capacity-building efforts for both the development of local e-government programmes andthe monitoring of progress through established indicators;• support through e-government capacity building at the national and local level for the development of a clearstrategic e-government development and management framework which informs national goals and targets;• continued monitoring and assessment of national government websites to follow up on e-government developmentbetween now and 2015.Finally, a global agreement on a consistent framework for measuring e-government development is called for in orderto avoid different meanings and interpretations by national and local governments, pave the way for the more effectiveadoption of best-practice solutions from around the world, and make progress in the international comparisonof e-government use and development. The indicators currently developed by the Partnership on Measuring ICT forDevelopment will contribute to collecting internationally comparable data that will serve to monitor e-governmentdevelopment and analyse its impacts.133

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsNotes1This chapter has been provided by Seema Hafeez from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), in collaborationwith ITU.2See: WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, § 15.3Indicators 5 and 7 are included here as they are considered important for a review of the target to date. However, for future monitoringof e-government, these indicators may no longer be necessary in view of the high achievement rate.4Eurostat e-Government Statistics: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/E-government_statistics#Development_of_e-government_services_usage, accessed 24 November 2009.134

Target 6: Connect all local and Target central 5: Connect government health departments centres and hospitals and establish with websites ICTs and e-mail addressesReferencesEuropean Commission (2009), Smarter, Faster, Better eGovernment, 8th Benchmark Measurement, report preparedby CAPGEMINI, RAND EUROPE, IDC, SOGETI and DTI for Directorate General for Information Society and Media,Brussels, November 2009.Eurostat (2009), Online interactions of European businesses and citizens with public administrations, Eurostat, Luxembourg.Holzer, M. and S.-T. Kim (2007), Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide (2007): A Longitudinal Assessmentof Municipal Websites Throughout the World, The E-Governance Institute, Rutgers, the State University ofNew Jersey, Campus at Newark.Observatory for the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean (OSILAC) (2009), “Developing e-Governmentindicators: Proposal for a regional list of ICT e-government core indicators,” Document prepared byOSILAC, in cooperation with the Working Group on Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) ofthe Statistical Conference of the Americas of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean(ECLAC), November 2009.Observatory for the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean (OSILAC) (2010), “MethodologicalGuidelines for Core e-government indicators: ECLAC regional proposal,” Document prepared by OSILAC, incooperation with the Working Group on Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) of the StatisticalConference of the Americas of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), February2010.UNDESA (2003), 2003 Global E-Government Survey, United Nations, New York.UNDESA (2008), 2008 Global E-government Survey, United Nations, New York.UNDESA (2010), 2010 Global E-government Survey, United Nations, New York.135

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyTarget 7: Adapt all primary and secondaryschool curricula to meet the challenges ofthe information society, taking into .account national circumstances 1IntroductionThe challenges faced by traditional education systems are amplified by the rapidly changing skills demanded in anincreasingly globalized labour market. Insights into the direction in which information societies and technologicaladvances are moving reveal a changing vision and a shift away from traditional practices. The impact of technologicalchange on education calls for a critical examination of national policies, past and present. ICTs can play an importantrole in redefining education to respond to contemporary information society needs. Thus, there is a need to revieweducation, from the earliest levels of schooling to the tertiary level, and to reorient and improve existing curriculaso as to capitalize on technological change. This policy response will help prepare a pool of competent and globallycompetitive workers.The action lines in the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action express a clear need for capacity building and skills developmentin order to reap the full benefits of the information society. Teachers who are methodically trained in the fields ofICT literacy and computing are best positioned to deliver curricula that build on the development of basic computerskills in preparation for advanced studies and the labour market. As stated in WSIS Action Line C4, capacity buildingthrough e-learning initiatives will be an important precondition for the development of skills in the informationsociety:“Everyone should have the necessary skills to benefit fully from the information society. Therefore capacitybuilding and ICT literacy are essential. ICTs can contribute to achieving universal education worldwide, throughdelivery of education and training of teachers, and offering improved conditions for lifelong learning, encompassingpeople that are outside the formal education process, and improving professional skills.” 2137

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsThe key points within Action Line C4 pertaining to teacher training and ICT-adapted curricula are as follows:• Develop domestic policies to ensure that ICTs are fully integrated in education and training at all levels, includingin curriculum development, teacher training, institutional administration and management, and in support ofthe concept of lifelong learning (§ 11a)• Develop pilot projects to demonstrate the impact of ICT-based alternative educational delivery systems, notablyfor achieving Education for All goals, including basic literacy targets (§ 11f)• Work on removing the gender barriers to ICT education and training and promoting equal training opportunitiesin ICT-related fields for women and girls. Early intervention programmes in science and technology shouldtarget young girls with the aim of increasing the number of women in ICT careers. Promote the exchange of bestpractices on the integration of gender perspectives in ICT education (§ 11g)• Design specific training programmes in the use of ICT in order to meet the educational needs of informationprofessionals, such as archivists, librarians, museum professionals, scientists, teachers, journalists, postal workersand other relevant professional groups. Training of information professionals should focus not only on newmethods and techniques for the development and provision of information and communication services, butalso on relevant management skills to ensure the best use of technologies. Training of teachers should focus onthe technical aspects of ICTs, on development of content, and on the potential possibilities and challenges ofICTs (§ 11k).In addition to the WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, two other international movements calling for equal education opportunitiesare the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) 3 and the Education for All (EFA) goals. The EFA movement wasofficially launched by the international community, including representatives from 155 countries, in 1990 in Jomtien,Thailand. 4 Ten years later, in Dakar, Senegal in 2000, with many countries still far from achieving their commitments,the international community reaffirmed its support to providing Education for All, identifying six goals to be achievedby 2015. The EFA goals 5 aim to increase participation, equity and quality in schooling and lifelong learning for all, inaddition to diversifying the skills supply to match the demands of the information society. While it is highly importantthat all of the goals be achieved, there are two EFA goals that are closely linked to the WSIS action lines, namely Goal3 and Goal 6, which aim to enhance the quality of education and the development of essential life skills. The idea thatICT-assisted instruction can help enhance the quality of education and expand learning opportunities is one of theBox 7.1: The six Education for All (EFA) goalsGoal 1: Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable anddisadvantaged childrenGoal 2: Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnicminorities, have access to, and complete, free and compulsory primary education of good qualityGoal 3: Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learningand life-skills programmesGoal 4: Achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access tobasic and continuing education for all adultsGoal 5: Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in educationby 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good qualityGoal 6: Improving all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurablelearning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skillsSource: UNESCO.138

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyBox 7.2: Estonia’s tiger leap from prerequisites to action 7In 1993, the Estonian Information Network of Education and Science (EENet) 8 was established by the Ministry of Education andCulture to improve Internet connectivity and computer training for teachers. Inspired by the early success of EENet’s initiativeduring the early nineties, the idea of distributing Internet-connected computers throughout Estonian high schools was firstenvisioned and articulated by a journalist in an 1995 newspaper article. Considering Estonia’s size and development trends atthe time, the country was quick to embrace the idea of introducing this new paradigm and enhancing the quality of education,to join the “developed world” in a single “tiger leap.” The metaphor of a tiger leap became popular and was supported by allinterest groups within society, including the President of the Republic, who announced the launch of the venture in a televisionspeech in early 1996. 9 The Tiger Leap Foundation was established at the end of 1996.The main focus of the project was on the acquisition of ICT hardware, the development of data communication networks andthe creation of educational software. Another important policy element was teacher education, as well as fostering a virtualenvironment devoted to the Estonian language, culture and heritage. 10, 11 Actual work in connecting schools to data communicationnetworks started after the project evaluation, at the end of 1997.By 2006, the Tiger Leap programme had succeeded in ensuring that Estonia’s schools were equipped with modern ICTs (includingbroadband access in the vast majority of schools) and had all integrated the use of ICTs in the curriculum. The focusof the 2006-2009 plan was on the creation of e-learning content and continued improvement of curriculum quality throughthe use of ICTs.stepping stones towards achieving the education-related targets in the WSIS Plan of Action and the EFA goals (for acomplete list of the EFA goals, see Box 7.1).In view of the challenges faced in meeting the WSIS, MDG 6 and EFA targets, it seems unrealistic to assume thatconventional delivery mechanisms will be capable of ensuring the affordable and sustainable provision of qualityand equal education opportunities for all by 2015. Indeed, the biggest challenge for many education systems is tobe able to offer training or learning opportunities to traditionally underserved or marginalized groups. This includesgirls and women who face barriers to schooling; rural populations that are too dispersed to populate regular schoolscost-effectively with reasonable class sizes; children from families in extreme poverty; and special needs groups orpersons with disabilities who have no access to learning centres.While the lack of ICT infrastructure remains a major constraint for many developing countries, some have gonebeyond connecting schools. Exemplary actions are being taken by governments in terms of policy initiatives that addressthe multi-faceted challenges of adapting curricula in primary and secondary schools to meet the demands of anever-changing society (see, for example Estonia, Box 7.2)Measuring Target 7 — Proposed indicatorsMonitoring curricula at the international level in relation to Target 7 can be understood in two ways. On the onehand, monitoring will track the outputs of ICT-adapted curricula. Almost all existing data on outputs in education arederived from sample-based international comparative assessments which rely on direct measurement of ICT use inschools and curricula by students and teachers (see Box 7.3). On the other hand, and of prime importance for Target7, monitoring must also focus on measuring the inputs required in order to gear curricula to the needs of the informationsociety. An evaluation over time of the requisite human and physical capital resources is essential, as theseconstitute the foundation for curricula that meet the changing needs of society.A set of core ICT in education indicators that measure aspects of e-readiness and access to ICT in education systemswas submitted by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development to the United Nations Statistical Commission(UNSC) at its 40th session in February 2009 [Partnership, 2010]. As a response to the need to expand the initialcore list, UIS has established the international Working Group for ICT Statistics in Education (WISE). The purpose ofthe working group is to bring together statisticians (national focal points) from ministries of education (or nationalstatistical offices) from 25 countries around the world to pilot the international Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in139

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 7.3: The use of ICT in curricula — A review of selected comparative assessmentsThe International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) has performed international comparativeassessments which focus on measuring student achievement in mathematics, science and reading, and include modules onICT use by students and teachers as part of the curriculum. Examples of these studies include the Progress in InternationalReading Literacy (PIRLS) 12 and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). 13 One of the first samplebasedassessments aiming exclusively at measuring the use of ICT in education was the Second Information Technology inEducation Studies (SITES). Initiated in 1997, SITES is a research programme focused on comparative assessment of ICT use ineducation across many countries. 14 In addition to cross-national data collection, qualitative case studies of innovative pedagogicalpractices were also undertaken. 15 SITES 2006 is the third project in the series. 16 Another important study is the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Theprogramme, which is a standardized international assessment targeting the performance of 15-year old students, includes aspecific module that examines ICT use by students [OECD, 2006].The growing prevalence and integration of technology for education over time shows that steps have been taken to bridgethe digital divide in education. In Charts 1 and 2 of Box 7.3, a comparison between the years 2000 and 2006 reveals an overallincrease in the frequency of use of computers at school for 15 year-old students. The median proportion of students that usecomputers every day for the same countries has risen modestly from five per cent to nine per cent, while the median valuefor the proportion of students that use computers once or twice a week 17 reached a relatively high level in 2006 (46 per cent).Comparison of the figures for students who have never used a computer at school in 2000 (17 per cent) and 2006 (5 per cent)points to the growing proliferation and use of computers at schools in many countries.To date, international comparative student assessments remain the predominant source of information for policy questionsregarding ICT use in education. These assessments are essential for identifying variables for the purposes of monitoring trendsin the integration of ICTs in education.Chart 1 Box 7.3: Frequency of computer use at school,2000Chart 2 Box 7.3: Frequency of computer use at school,2006%604020Almost every day (median 5%)A few times each week (median 24%)Never (median 17%)%80604020Almost every day (median 9%)Once or twice a week (median 46%)Never (median 5%)0GermanyNew ZealandSwitzerlandRussiaCanadaChileIrelandNorwayLiechtensteinBelgiumCzech Rep.ThailandSwedenLatviaAustraliaDenmarkFinlandBulgariaHungary0CanadaGermanyChileNorwaySwitzerlandIrelandSwedenDenmarkFinlandAustraliaBelgiumLiechtensteinCzech Rep.BulgariaRussiaThailandLatviaHungarySource: OECD PISA databaseSource: OECD PISA databaseEducation. The following four indicators 18 suggested to monitor Target 7 in the following sections (Box 7.4) are theresult of this initiative [UNESCO-UIS, 2009a]:1. Proportion of ICT-qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools (for ISCED levels 1-3)2. Proportion of teachers trained to teach subjects using ICT (for ISCED levels 1-3)3. Proportion of schools with computer-assisted instruction (for ISCED levels 1-3)4. Proportion of schools with Internet-assisted instruction (for ISCED levels 1-3)140

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyBox 7.4: How is ICT-assisted instruction defined?ICT-assisted instruction refers to teaching methods or models of instruction delivery that employ ICT in supporting, enhancingand enabling course-content delivery. It includes any, all or combinations of the following: radio-, television-, computer- andInternet-assisted instructionWhat are ICT-related fields?ICT-related fields include all programmes that comprise any of the following four fields of education and training [UNESCO-UIS, 2009a] [Eurostat, 1999]:Audiovisual techniques and media production is the study of techniques and the acquisition of skills to produce books,newspapers, radio/television programmes, films/videos, recorded music and graphic reproduction with ICT. It includes programmesin methods of colour reproduction, photography and computer graphics, as well as the layout for pictures, wordsand decorations in the production of books, magazines, posters, advertisements, etc.Computer science is the study of the design and development of computer systems and computing environments. It includesthe study of the design, maintenance and integration of software applications.Computer use is the study of using computers and computer software and applications for different purposes. These programmesare generally of short duration.Electronics and automation (engineering and engineering trades) is the study of planning, designing, developing, maintainingand monitoring electronic equipment, machinery and systems. It includes designing computers and equipment for communication.Source: [UNESCO-UIS, 2009a].These indicators will measure the inputs or determinants required for the effective delivery of ICT-adapted curricula.Inputs in this instance refer specifically to trained teachers as well as the required conditions for the delivery of ICTassistedinstruction. They serve as the foundation for the integration of ICTs in education systems. The indicators thatmonitor these inputs are statistically comparable at a cross-national level, and aim to track progress towards Target 7and the corresponding action lines identified above. At the international level, the collection and dissemination ofthese indicators are under the responsibility of UIS.The stock of available human capital for teaching is seen as the hallmark for the effective delivery of any curriculum,in particular one that involves ICT-assisted instruction (for a definition of this indicator, see Box 7.4). One usefulmeasure in monitoring the stock of human capital is thus the proportion of ICT-qualified teachers (or teachers trainedto teach basic computer skills) in primary and secondary schools. Such a measure sheds light on the extent to whichprimary and secondary school teachers have the required ICT training to teach basic computer skills (or computing)classes. This indicator is part of the core list of ICT indicators identified by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development(Partnership indicator ED8).A high percentage of ICT-qualified teachers among the overall teaching staff in primary and secondary schools suggeststhat a country aims to provide learners with basic ICT skills and to meet emerging and evolving skills requirementsin the information society. This does not automatically mean, however, that basic computer skills (or computing)classes are actually offered to learners by all teaching staff who have received formal training to teach basiccomputer skills (e.g. in cases where certain other prerequisites — such as computer labs, basic computer skills coursesyllabus, etc. — are not available in schools). Besides its use for international comparison, this indicator can also becalculated and analysed at national and subnational levels (by ISCED level and grade, geographical region, urban/rural area, and public/private school) in order to design tailored policies and help implement training actions anddeploy adequate numbers of ICT-trained teachers in schools.141

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsThe proportion of ICT-qualified teachers is a measure of human capital stock based on a nationally defined qualificationin the core disciplines of ICT or a qualification to teach basic computer skills. The proportion of primary and secondaryschool teachers trained to teach subject(s) using ICT refers to those teachers who have received a nationallydefined minimum of formal training to teach one or more subjects at the relevant level(s) using ICT to support theirteaching.A high percentage for the latter indicator can be interpreted as an appropriate measure of e-readiness. It meansthat teachers have been sufficiently trained to use ICTs to teach subject(s) in primary and secondary schools. Whencalculated by ISCED level, geographical region, urban/rural area and individual educational institution, and analysedin conjunction with other indicators, this indicator can highlight discrepancies, so that appropriate policy steps canbe taken to assign trained teachers more effectively and to provide training to teachers.Developing an informed assessment of curricula to meet the changing needs of the information society entails multipledimensions. While targeted policies for the recommended use of ICTs in curricula and for human capital formationof teachers are vital to this assessment, other dimensions are required in order to monitor progress towardsachieving the WSIS targets. In tandem with these aspects, therefore, indicators that measure the actual numberor proportion of primary and secondary schools that offer computer-assisted instruction and/or Internet-assistedinstruction provides policy-makers with a sense of the intensity or magnitude of ICT use at the school level. Internetassistedinstruction refers to an interactive learning method using the Internet to deliver instructional materials on acomputer or through other devices, in accordance with learners’ pedagogical needs. This mode of instruction helpsto develop autonomy in research activities as well as information literacy skills. Computer-assisted instruction, whichdoes not necessitate a cable or telephone line and is therefore more accessible, focuses more on the use of educationalsoftware and related tools in curricula, which can also increase information literacy skills.Status of Target 7While the results of existing surveys provide important insights into the status of school curricula, it is important tonote that data for each of the four indicators proposed for measuring Target 7 are limited to about 20-25 economies.19 Annex 7.1 provides an overview of all available data to track Target 7.Existing figures for the proportion of ICT-qualified teachers 20 range from zero (in Bolivia and Nauru) to six per centof the entire teaching force for a (limited and rather heterogeneous) selection of countries representing differentregions and income levels. Data are available for two developed countries from Europe (Estonia and Lithuania).While Estonia has one per cent of ICT-qualified teachers, four per cent of teachers in Lithuania have ICT qualifications(Chart 7.1). The economies with the largest proportion of ICT-qualified teachers in all schools are Bahrain, Jordan andthe Palestinian Authority. In Jordan, a country that has made ICTs a priority (see Box 7.5) the necessary qualificationto teach basic computer skills in the public education system has been formalized (and is held by six per cent of teachersin public schools). All teachers that teach the subject have a formal qualification in computer science.Nevertheless, this indicator only depicts the skilled teaching force available to deliver basic ICT skills (or computing)classes based on nationally defined standards. This does not necessarily mean that each of the teachers recordedas qualified actually teaches a basic ICT skills (or computing) course. Furthermore, in schools where there is no ICTequipment or inadequate ICT equipment, course delivery may not be effective even though the schools have teachersqualified to teach ICT. Given these limitations and the limited number of countries where data are available, it isdifficult to identify an ideal percentage of ICT-qualified teachers. Much will depend, therefore, on how a country’sICT-qualified teachers are employed; but the input indicators provide a good insight into teachers’ qualifications,training and potential, allow policy-makers to set targets, measure progress and make international comparisons.Having ascertained the stock of ICT-qualified teachers that have the nationally defined qualification to teach basiccomputer skills, it is interesting to investigate the proportion of teachers who actually teach basic computer skills.An obvious hypothesis is that there would be a one-to-one relationship between the two groups. Indeed, Chart 7.2shows that there is evidence in many countries of a more or less linear relationship, indicating a perfect match. Economiessuch as Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Tunisia display perfect proportionality (i.e. a one-to-one ratio)between the two groups of teachers. Egypt shows a very high proportion of ICT-qualified teachers (24.5 per cent) asagainst only a small proportion of teachers actually teaching basic computer skills (1.9 per cent). This extremely high142

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyBox 7.5: Integrating ICTs in the curricula — A priority in Jordan 21Recognizing the importance and potential impact of the ICT sector for economic development, Jordan has made extensiveefforts to achieve a high level of ICT readiness. The country has committed significant investments to reform the current educationsystem in order to allow individuals to participate in the knowledge-based economy. Initiatives have focused on establishingand modernizing the infrastructure required to support ICT-assisted instruction. This includes the provision of Internetconnectivity and computer labs that are equipped with relevant hardware and software. By 2009, 72 per cent of learnerswere entitled to use Internet laboratories at school as a pedagogical aid. Along with the development of electronic content,teacher-training initiatives were also deployed to complementteaching and learning processes with the use of ICTs.Chart 1 Box 7.5: Proportion of schools with Internetassistedinstruction, Jordan, 2009%858075706560Public82 %Source: Jordan Ministry of Education.Private71 %By 2009, 80 per cent of schools in Jordan had Internet-assistedinstruction (IAI) — 71 per cent of private schools and82 per cent of public schools. Computer-assisted instruction(CAI) is practiced in 86 per cent of schools — 95 percent of private schools and 83 per cent of public schools(see Charts 1 and 2 of Box 7.5).Substantial advances have also been made in terms ofteacher training. By 2009, all teachers who teach subjectsinvolving computer literacy have a bachelor’s degree incomputer science. Overall, ICT-qualified teachers makeup six per cent of the teaching force, and the proportionof teachers trained to teach subject(s) using ICT facilitiesis 62 per cent. The proportion of female teachers trainedis 37 per cent, compared to 26 per cent for men (Chart 3Box 7.5). The ratio of learners-to-“teachers using ICT toteach” is 26:1 (31:1 in public schools and 16:1 in privateschools).Chart 2 Box 7.5: Proportion of schools with computerassistedinstruction, Jordan, 2009Chart 3 Box 7.5: Proportion of teachers trained toteach subjects using ICTs, Jordan, 200995 %%4037 %959085807583 %35302526 %100 % Public Private7020MaleFemaleSource: Jordan Ministry of Education.Source: Jordan Ministry of Education.proportion of trained teachers in Egypt is attributed to a government policy by the Ministry of Education that sponsorsteachers to take the International Computer Driving Licence. 22 This internationally recognized certification helpsdevelop candidates’ computer skills and increases their overall level of competency in using personal computers andcommon computer applications. 23 Costa Rica, on the other hand, displays a different type of gap between theory143

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 7.1: Proportion of ICT-qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools, 2008-09*109%24.5876543210BoliviaNauruGhanaParaguayEstoniaDominican Rep.BelarusMalaysiaThailandArgentinaKorea (Rep.)TunisiaLithuaniaPalestineJordanBahrainEgyptMoroccoCosta RicaProportion of ICT-qualified teachers in all schoolsProportion of ICT-qualified teachers in public schoolsNote: *Or latest year available.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education and ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.Chart 7.2: Proportion of teachers who teach basic computer skills compared to the proportion of ICT-qualifiedteachers (in public primary and secondary schools), 2008*25Proportion of teachers who teachbasic computer skills (%)201510Bolivia0Morocco MalaysiaCosta RicaJordan5Korea (Rep.)EstoniaTunisiaBelarus0 5 10 15 20 25Proportion of ICT-qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools (%)EgyptNote: *Or latest year available.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education (2009).144

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyand practice: as many as 12 per cent of teachers teach basic computer skills, yet only four per cent are ICT-qualified.Conversely, figures suggest that Malaysia is not fully utilizing its pool of ICT-qualified teachers (2.5 per cent) to teachbasic computer skills, since only 1.3 per cent are teaching ICT courses.Nationally defined ICT qualifications to teach basic computer skills may differ from one country to another. Whilesome countries may require a formal degree in an ICT-related field, others may have other forms of nationally definedcertification to deliver courses in basic computer skills in their curricula.There is significant variation in terms of the availability of teachers with formalized training in ICT-assisted instructionacross the group of countries with available data. This is apparent in Chart 7.3, as the proportion of teachers trainedto teach subjects using ICT in schools (i.e. ICT-assisted instruction) ranges from zero (in Costa Rica) to 100 per cent (inSingapore and Croatia). A high proportion of teachers are trained in the use of ICTs in both public and private schoolsin countries such as Jordan (62 per cent, 68 per cent), Bahrain (70 per cent, 97 per cent) Malaysia (94 per cent, 95 percent) and Belarus (59 per cent for both). This usually reflects ongoing policies to fully integrate ICT into curricula andtraining programmes in these countries. For instance, under the Malaysian plan to fulfil “Vision 2020,” a policy aimedat developing a critically thinking and technologically literate workforce, the Ministry of Education has successfullyconverted its schools into ICT-enabled “Smart Schools” through various phases beginning in 1999. The objective ofthe Smart Schools is to enhance the quality of education through the introduction of technology. Different multimediatechnologies create the enabling infrastructure for new teaching and learning processes within the educationnetwork to link all Smart Schools. 24Many countries have moved beyond the initial e-readiness stage, to full penetration of Internet connectivity (seeChart 7.4), with all primary and secondary schools making use of the world wide web in their curricula (Bahrain,Finland, Malaysia, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Uruguay and the United States). In a number of developing countries,including Oman, Jordan, Tunisia and Mauritius, a relatively large proportion of schools (between 60 and 90 per cent)practise Internet-assisted instruction. Other countries such as Nauru, Malta, Guatemala and Ethiopia show eitherlow or no presence of Internet-assisted instruction. Having said that, these countries may use alternative technolo-Chart 7.3: Proportion of primary and secondary school teachers trained to teach subject(s) using ICTs, (forISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09*%100806040200Costa RicaBosnia and Herz.NauruAlbaniaTunisiaTurkeyMoroccoSlovak Rep.BelarusJordanThailandLithuaniaMalaysiaBahrainSingaporeCroatiaEgyptProportion of all teachers trained to teach subject(s) using ICT facilitiesProportion of public school teachers trained to teach subject(s) using ICT facilitiesNote: *Or latest year available. Includes national estimates.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education and ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.145

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 7.4: Proportion of (public and private) schools with Internet-assisted instruction (for ISCED levels 1-3),2008-09*100%806040200NauruMaltaEthiopiaPalestineBelarusOmanPolandJordanTunisiaMauritiusAlbaniaBahrainFinlandMalaysiaKorea (Rep.)SwedenUruguayBruneiSingaporeAndorraCroatiaNote: *Or latest year available. Existing data are presented for total schools (public and private)Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education and ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.Chart 7.5: Proportion of schools with computer-assisted instruction (for ISCED levels 1-3), 2008-09**100%806040200MaltaNauruDominican Rep.Guatemala*BhutanEgypt*PolandAustriaTunisiaAlbaniaJordanBelarusMauritiusAndorraBharainBruneiCroatiaFinlandLithuaniaMalaysiaOmanKorea (Rep.)SingaporeSwedenUruguayNote: **Or latest year available. Existing data is presented for total schools (public and private), unless marked by an * which indicatesonly public schools.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education and ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.146

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societygies such as radio-, and television-assisted instruction to complement course delivery, according to national circumstances.Chart 7.5 shows that computer-assisted instruction is very prevalent in a number of countries. This type of instructionis more accessible, because it does not require a cable or telephone connection. It is founded on the use of educationalsoftware and related tools in the curricula. As many as eight countries from different regions and at differentlevels of development indicate that they have fully adopted this mode of instruction in their schools. A country’sdevelopment status does not necessarily seem to determine the level of computer-assisted instruction, since bothAustria and Poland — two developed, European countries — have lower levels (76 and 69 per cent) than a numberof developing countries, including Tunisia, Jordan and Mauritius. A number of countries, including Malta, Nauru, theDominican Republic and Guatemala, report no or little computer-assisted instruction in their schools. On the otherhand, these countries may have a greater prevalence of other forms of ICT-assisted instruction such as television- andradio-assisted instruction.Conclusions and recommendationsUnder the right conditions, it is believed that ICTs can have a massive impact on the expansion of learning opportunitiesto greater and more diverse populations, beyond cultural barriers, and outside the confines of teachinginstitutions or geographical boundaries [Haddad and Draxler, 2002]. Indeed, technology can improve the teachingand learning process by reforming conventional delivery systems. As a tool, ICTs enhance the quality of learning andfacilitate state-of-the-art skills formation.Guaranteeing an adequate supply of trained teachers is of critical importance and remains a major challenge confrontingmany countries throughout both the developing and developed world. While only a limited number of countriescollect data on the proportion of ICT-qualified teachers, there are large variations among countries. Some entirelylack trained staff and therefore remain unprepared to adapt their curricula to the information society. Similardiscrepancies exist in terms of the proportion of primary and secondary teachers trained to teach subjects using ICTfacilities, with the proportion ranging from zero in some countries to 100 per cent in others.Without an adequate pool of skilled teachers, adapting curricula to meet the needs of the information society is arguablyunattainable. It is widely understood that ICTs by themselves cannot provide the education that learners need inorder to be productive citizens in society and to contribute to the economic, social and political life of their countries.Success in implementing and leveraging ICTs in education in the conventional classroom setting is heavily dependenton teachers. Moreover, without the necessary investments in infrastructure to support a curriculum that intends toencapsulate ICT in the learning process, the formation of practical ICT skills of both learners as well as teachers ishampered. By definition, schools that do not have the supporting ICT infrastructure and ICT-trained teachers are notin a position to deliver pedagogical initiatives such as computer- and Internet-assisted instruction.In a general sense, adapting curricula means modifying the way content is presented and delivered. It means adjustingthe curriculum to ensure that all ICT-mediated content is accessible to all students. Adapting the curriculum to integrateICTs requires emphasis on design, development and implementation of instructional approaches that providemultiple means of representation and multiple means of student engagement. The inclusion of ICTs in curriculumdesign means that more flexibility is required in order to be able to adjust to learners.For the limited sample of countries for which data are available on the different forms of ICT-assisted instruction, thevariation across countries is striking. While a number countries show evidence of an ICT-adapted curriculum in all ora majority of their primary and secondary schools, only a small proportion of schools in many developing countrieshave the requisite inputs to effectively integrate ICT as part of the curriculum. Countries which have adopted fullscaleimplementation of computer- and Internet-assisted instruction in their schools also have a relatively higherproportion of trained teachers, whereas other countries show signs that they are still in the early stages of implementation.Looking at the gap observed, albeit across the limited number of countries with available data, countrieswhich are in the earlier stages of e-readiness can propel their progress by seizing opportunities to determine whatactivities or conditions are necessary, learning from more advanced countries which have employed effective modelsand policies for integrating ICTs in their curricula.147

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsIndeed, to adapt school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society, and hence meet WSIS Target 7,policies must go beyond mere capital investments in ICT-related infrastructure. It is imperative that initiatives alsodevelop ICT-skills building among the teaching force, so that the knowledge can be passed down to students. Policiesfor developing ICT skills among teachers act as a catalyst for adapting new curricula that prepare student populationsfor knowledge-based economies. While many developing countries, in partnership with the international community,must continue to commit resources with a view to achieving Target 2 (Connect educational institutions toICTs), policy-makers must at the same time address the multi-faceted challenges of adapting curricula in primary andsecondary schools to meet the demands of an ever-changing society.148

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyNotes1Substantial inputs to this chapter have been provided by Mr Claude Akpabie from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), Ms BeatrizValdez-Melgar (UIS), Dr Khalida Shatat from the Jordan Ministry of Education and Mr Joel Peetersoo from the Estonian Ministry of Educationand Research. These inputs are greatly acknowledged.2See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, § 11 at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c4.3MDG Target 2 is to “achieve universal primary education.” For more information on the target and its indicators, see:http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=Indicators/OfficialList.htm.4The movement was launched at the World Conference on Education for All in 1990 by UNESCO, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and the WorldBank and signed by delegates from 155 countries, as well as representatives from some 150 governmental and non-governmental organizations.For more information, see: http://www.unesco.org/en/efa/the-efa-movement/efa-goals/.5For an overview of the UNESCO Education for All Goals, see:http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=50558&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.6The latest MDG regional assessment (progress chart) highlights that a number of regions are not on track for achieving target 2 of theMDGs, see: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2009/MDG_Report_2009_Progress_Chart_En.pdf.7The content of this box was contributed by Mr Joel Peetersoo, Analyst for Research and Development, Estonian Ministry of Education andResearch. For more information on the “Tiger Leap,” see: http://www.tiigrihype.ee/.8EENet. Akadeemilise andmeside areng Eestis, at: http://www.eenet.ee/EENet/40.html.9Jõesaar, A. & Muuli, K. (2005). Ilves kavandab Eestile tiigrihüpet uude sajandisse, at: http://www.eenet.ee/EENet/18.html.10Mattson, T. (1997). Tiiger ampsab tuleval aastal vaid 35,5 miljonit, at:http://www.postimees.ee/leht/96/09/24/kuum.htm and RISO (Estonia State Information System).11Aastaraamat (1996). Infotehnoloogia rakendamisest ja infosüsteemide arengust valitsusasutustes, at:http://www.riso.ee/et/pub/1996it/p3.html.12International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA), PIRLS 2006, at: http://www.iea.nl/pirls20060.html.13International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA), TIMSS 2007, at: http://www.iea.nl/timss2007.html.14International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) (1999). SITES M1, at:http://www.iea.nl/sites-m1.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=m1.15International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA), 2002, SITES M2, at:http://www.iea.nl/sites-m2.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=m2.16International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA), 2006,.SITES M3, at:http://www.iea.nl/sites20060.html?&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=m1.17The wording for category items in the 2000 and 2006 questionnaire modules differs. The item for weekly frequency in the 2000 questionnairereads: “A few times each week” whereas the 2006 questionnaire item reads: “Once or twice a week.”18ISCED refers to the International Standard Classification of Education and is used to define the levels and fields of education. ISCED levels1, 2, and 3 refer to primary, lower secondary and (upper) secondary education. For more information, see [UNESCO 1997].19Data are based on the UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education (which is limited to a group of 25 economies, including thePalestinian Autonomous Territories (Palestinian Authority)), as well as on the ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.20Teachers trained to teach basic computer skills (or computing) refer to teachers considered qualified according to national standardsor norms to teach basic computer skills (or computing) courses. All teachers trained specifically in ICTs under pre-service or in-serviceschemes according to nationally defined qualification standards are counted as qualified. At higher ISCED levels, in particular, teacherstrained to teach computing should have a nationally required academic credential in an ICT-related field of study, such as computer science.21The content of this box was contributed by Dr Khalida Shatat, Director of Studies and Technology Projects, Jordan Ministry of Education.22http://www.icdlegypt.gov.eg/FactsAndFigures.aspx.23http://www.icdlegypt.gov.eg/Inside.aspx.24UNESCO Bangkok (2006). Malaysia — ICT in Education: Regional and Country Overviews. UNESCO, at:http://www.unescobkk.org/education/ict/themes/policy/regional-country-overviews/malaysia/.149

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesEurostat (1999), Fields of Education and Training — Manual, Luxembourg: Eurostat.Haddad, W.D. and A. Draxler (eds.) (2002), Technologies for Education: Potentials, Parameters and Prospects, Paris:UNESCO and the Academy for Educational Development (AED).OECD (2006), Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Retrieved from:http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32236130_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010), Core ICT Indicators, Geneva.UNESCO (1997), International Standard Classification of Education, UNESCO, Paris, 1997.UNESCO — UIS (2009a), Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education.WSIS (2003), Geneva Plan of Action, Geneva: ITU150

Target 7: Adapt all primary and secondary school Executive curricula summary to meet the challenges of the information societyAnnex 7.1: ICTs in education (ISCED levels 1-3)**Country% of ICT-qualifiedteachers% of teacherstrained to teachsubjects using ICT% of schools withcomputer-assistedinstruction% of schools withInternet-assistedinstructionAfricaEthiopia ... ... ... 2 2008Ghana 0.3 2009 ... ... ...Mauritius ... ... ... 99 2008 85 2008Arab StatesBahrain 6 2008 97 2008 100 2008 100 2008Egypt 24.5* 2008 37* 2008 63* 2008 ...Jordan 6 2009 62 2009 86 2009 80 2009Morocco 1* 2008 31 2009 ... ...Oman ... ... 100 2008 62 2008Tunisia 4 2008 13 2008 84 2008 81 2008Asia and the PacificBhutan ... ... 50 2008 ...Brunei ... ... 100 No yr. 100 No yr.Korea (Rep.) 4 2008 100 2008 100 2008Malaysia 3 2008 95 2008 100 2008 100 2008Nauru 0 2009 7 2009 0 2009 0 2009Singapore ... 100 2009 100 2009 100 2009Thailand 3 2008 66 2008 ... ...CISBelarus 2 2008 59 2008 91.8* 2008 45 2008EuropeAlbania ... 10 2009 86 2009 88 2009Andorra ... ... 100 2009 100 2009Austria ... ... 76 2007 ...Bosnia and Herzegovina ... 4 2008 ... ...Croatia ... 100 2009 100 2009 100 2009Estonia 1 2008 ... ... ...Finland ... ... 100 2008 100 2008Lithuania 4 2009 91 2009 100 2009 99 2009Malta ... ... 0 2009 0 2009Poland ... ... 69 2008 65 2008Slovak Republic ... 43 2008 ... ...Sweden ... ... 100 2008 100 2008Turkey ... 21 2009 ... ...The AmericasArgentina 3 2007 ... ... ...Bolivia 0 2008 ... ... ...Costa Rica 4* 2008 0 2008 ... ...Dominican Republic 2 2008 ... 0 2008 ...Guatemala ... ... 3* 2009 ...Paraguay 1 2008 ... ... ...Uruguay ... ... 100 2008 100 2008Other EconomiesPalestinian Authority 5 2009 ... ... 23 2009Note: ** The reference year is indicated for each data point. Existing data are presented for total schools (public and private), unlessmarked by an *, which indicates only public schools. “...”: data not available.Source: UIS Pilot Questionnaire on Statistics of ICT in Education and ITU Survey on the WSIS Targets.151

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesTarget 8: Ensure that all of the world’spopulation have access to television and .radio services 1IntroductionTarget 8 specifically addresses the need to take advantage of broadcasting technologies — often referred to as “older”or traditional ICTs — to help countries move towards the information society. In some countries, broadcastingtechnologies will complement newer ICTs, while for others, especially those at early stages of ICT development, theymight represent a valid alternative when newer technologies are not available or affordable.Making radio and television (TV) services widely available is important for enhancing national identity, providing anoutlet for domestic media content and informing the public about important news and information. The latter elementis critical in times of emergencies. Broadcasting can also serve important educational purposes by transmittingcourses and other instructional material (see Target 2). Radio and television programmes are a principal source ofnews and information for illiterate segments of the population. They complement the printed media and are particularlyimportant in countries where few people use the Internet, or where local online content and content in locallanguages are limited.Broadcasting is mainly referred to in WSIS Action Line 9 (Media). It is essential for promoting linguistic diversity andcultural identity, given its relatively high prevalence in relation to other ICTs. One of the elements of Action Line 9 isto: “Encourage traditional media to bridge the knowledge divide and to facilitate the flow of cultural content, particularlyin rural areas.” 2Target 8 is also relevant to Action Line 2 (Information and communication infrastructure), since broadcasting constitutesan important part of ICT infrastructure and widespread access to broadcasting services is fundamental forreducing the digital divide. Broadcasting is also related to aspects of this action line concerning the availability of adequateand affordable ICT equipment, given that radio and TV sets are needed in order to use broadcasting services.Action Line 2 calls, moreover, for encouraging and promoting “traditional media.” 3153

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBroadcasting can provide content relevant to local cultures and languages, thus linking Target 8 to Action Line C8(Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content), one element of which is also to: “Give supportto media based in local communities and support projects combining the use of traditional media and new technologiesfor their role in facilitating the use of local languages, for documenting and preserving local heritage... and as ameans to reach rural and isolated and nomadic communities...Enhance the capacity of indigenous peoples to developcontent in their own languages.” 4 Broadcasting is arguably better placed than newer media to fulfill these roles, inview of the wider dissemination of broadcast devices in developing countries compared to Internet access.Although much of the discussion surrounding Action Line C3 (Access to information and knowledge) refers to newertechnologies, traditional ICTs such as broadcasting are important for disseminating “information and knowledge almostinstantaneously.” 5Measuring Target 8 — Proposed indicatorsA literal reading of Target 8 presents three methodological challenges. The first is that television and radio serviceis a general term. In the past, it would have meant access to analogue terrestrial broadcasting transmissions using atraditional radio or television set. Today’s digital world has multiplied the possibilities. Some countries are migratingaway from analogue, to digital terrestrial television, while in most developed nations and many developing ones amajority of households are receiving multichannel TV broadcasting via coaxial cable or direct-to-home (DTH) satellitenetworks (and more recently over broadband Internet connections). The ability to receive digital multichannel broadcastinghas significant quality and content advantages compared to analogue over-the-air transmissions.A second complication is the term access. Access implies the ability to receive a broadcasting signal and would bemeasured by the population within range of the signal. This has typically been measured on the basis of terrestrialaccess, but today satellites serve the whole world and provide ubiquitous coverage, and signals can be received bysmall satellite dishes. While coverage is important to determine if the prerequisite conditions for access exist, a radioFigure 8.1: Television coverage and percentage of households with electricity and television, South Africa,2007TerrestrialTV coverage91%Householdswith electricity80%Householdswith TV66%Source: Adapted from SABC, Statistics South Africa.154

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesor TV set is also essential to make use of the service. Furthermore, in the case of television, some form of electriccurrent is also needed (e.g. minimally equivalent to the power of a car battery). Figure 8.1 illustrates the relationshipbetween coverage, electricity and television set availability in the case of South Africa.The third methodological concern relates to the unit of access. The target refers to population. While it can be usefulto measure the percentage of the population who can listen to or view broadcasting, in practice this kind of data isnot widely available across countries. While some broadcasting markets measure audience shares in terms of thenumber of people listening to or watching a service, this does not capture the total potential market.A more common and almost universally available measure is the percentage of households that have a broadcast device.This information is typically asked for in censuses and household surveys. It has been a useful measure of access,since broadcasting is often a shared experience among family or friends. Furthermore, the existence of a broadcastingreceiver in a household suggests that different family members have access. Having said that, the personalizationof ICTs is resulting in more individual possession and usage of media devices. It is common in developed nations andhigh-income developing-country households to find more than one broadcasting receiver. What is now different isthat individuals increasingly possess their own devices, such as mobile phones or laptop computers, which are alsocapable of receiving terrestrial broadcasting signals or streamed broadcasts over the Internet (Box 8.1).Box 8.1: Broadcasting and the InternetBroadcast-like services are continually evolving on the Internet. Some are extensions of traditional broadcasting, such as conventionalradio or television stations with websites that feature streaming of audio or video programmes (i.e. webcasting).Others are unique to the Internet, such as Internet-only broadcast stations.There are thousands of Internet radio stations. In 2008, some 33 million people in the United States listened to Internet radiostations at least once a week [Arbitron, 2008]. Many stations offer podcasts, providing users an opportunity to listen to thebroadcast at a different time. Internet-only radio stations have been affected by copyright and licensing disputes with recordlabels, which have had an impact on their growth. 6A growing number of television broadcasters provide back episodes of popular programmes on their websites. Some broadcasters’websites also offer live programming, particularly for sporting events. Hulu, a US-based joint venture of several broadcastingcompanies, offers thousands of videos. 7There is also a lot of unique audio and video on the Internet that does not fit into the traditional broadcasting realm. One ofthe most popular is YouTube, which started as a peer video upload site but now also has mainstream broadcasters such asBBC posting content. 8While the Internet initially took ideas from broadcasting and applied them to the Internet, the reverse is now increasinglytrue. Some broadcasters flash their website across their programmes indicating where users can go for past episodes or moreinformation about the programme. Multichannel TV operators have picked up on peer video such as YouTube by allowingsubscribers to upload self-produced videos, which can be downloaded from on-demand channels.The popularity of the Internet for watching video is growing. In Germany, for example Internet users watched 6.4 billion videoson the Internet in August 2009 alone. 9 The leading site was YouTube, with 2.7 billion videos viewed. Half of the top ten siteswere those of traditional broadcasters, including local TV companies SAT1 and RTL.Traditional and new media synergies have expanded another step with the emergence of Internet-ready televisions. In additionto traditional TV, these new hybrids can also search the Internet for the viewer, and display Internet content such asYouTube videos. 10 Users that do not have Internet-ready televisions can access films and videos from rental sites over theInternet using streaming devices.So far, no Internet-only site has established a reputation for originally created news and information through their ownnetwork of correspondents around the world and professional studios. Traditional broadcasters are desperately trying tostrengthen their web presence or strike collaborative deals with Internet sites in order to pre-empt this from happening. Inexpensivedigital cameras and camera phones would make it easy to get content from collaborators around the world, but thusfar Internet-only broadcasters lack the credibility that traditional media outlets enjoy.155

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsAnother consideration is community broadcast experiences in developing countries, where TV and radio access maybe available in public institutions such as a community centre or school. Data at the household level may thereforeunderstate the true reach of broadcasting in a country. However, data that would measure public access at a nationallevel is practically non-existent.The indicators and definitions that the international community uses to measure basic access to broadcasting serviceare the proportion of households with a radio and the proportion of households with a TV. These data are widely collectedin censuses and household surveys. There are various nuances to the data that can affect their accuracy but atthis time are not considered to cause serious comparability issues. For example, households may have televisions inareas without terrestrial broadcasting coverage and use them only to watch prerecorded material on video recordersor DVDs or to connect to game stations. Radio and TV reception chips can be embedded in electronic equipment suchas mobile phones, computers or music players, or reception devices can be installed in the USB ports of computers.It is important, however, to go beyond simple household ownership of a radio or TV, and to track the availability ofmultichannel television services. ”Multichannel” refers to the ability to receive more than just analogue terrestrialfree-to-air channels. Multichannel services can be provided by digital terrestrial television (DTT), cable television(CATV), direct-to-home (DTH) satellite or Internet-Protocol television (IPTV). Multichannel TV services are importantbecause they provide higher-quality services and more content, important factors for increasing the demand fortelevision services.In some countries, these data are compiled from household surveys. In others, they are available from administrativestatistics compiled by telecommunication and broadcasting regulatory authorities, industry associations or broadcastingoperators. There are various nuances that affect the comparability of the data. For example, some countriesconsider only pay TV subscriptions, whereas there are a number of DTH systems that offer free-to-air channels andfor which viewers do not need to pay a subscription charge. There are also inconsistencies in how multichannelmultipoint distribution service (MMDS) (i.e. wireless pay television) subscribers are reported. In some countries,subscribers may have cable TV, but only for the rebroadcast of analogue terrestrial channels, or similarly may receiveTable 8.1: Indicators (and definitions) to monitor access to TV and radio servicesIndicator1. Proportion of households with a radio(Partnership indicator HH1)2. Proportion of households with a TV(Partnership indicator HH2)3. Proportion of households withmultichannel television service, brokendown by:• Cable television (CATV) service• Direct-to-home (DTH) satellitedish television service• Internet-Protocol television service(IPTV)• Digital terrestrial television (DTT)DefinitionA radio is a device capable of receiving broadcast radio signals, usingpopular frequencies, such as FM, AM, LW and SW. It includes a radio setintegrated in a car or an alarm clock but excludes radios integrated with amobile phone, a digital audio player (MP3 player) or in a computerA TV (television) is a standalone device capable of receiving broadcasttelevision signals, using popular access means such as over-the-air, cableand satellite. It excludes TV functionality integrated with another device,such as a computer or a mobile phoneMultichannel television refers to services that provide additional programmingbeyond the free-to-air analogue terrestrial channels. Multichannel TVservices should be broken down by CATV, DTH, IPTV and DTT• Cable television service refers to multichannel programming deliveredover a coaxial cable for viewing on television sets• Direct-to-home satellite services are received via a satellite dish capableof receiving satellite television broadcasts• Internet-Protocol TV is the delivery of multimedia services such as television/video/audio/text/graphics/datadelivered over an IP-basednetwork• Digital terrestrial television is the technological evolution and advancefrom analogue terrestrial television, which broadcasts landbased(terrestrial) signals156

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesonly analogue terrestrial channels through a satellite master antenna television (SMATV) system. In a few cases, thenumber of subscriptions may be underreported by operators in order to avoid regulatory fees or payments due tocontent providers, or because they are not licensed to provide service.The three indicators identified to monitor access to TV and radio services are listed in Table 8.1. The first two are partof the Core List of Indicators adopted by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development [Partnership, 2010]. Atthe international level, the data collection is under the responsibility of ITU.Status of Target 8This section analyses the current level of radio and television coverage and household penetration around the globe.It also examines the worldwide status of multichannel television (terrestrial digital, cable, satellite and IPTV) and theemergence of mobile TV, which is not included in the list of indicators to monitor Target 8 but could be considered auseful indicator in the future. Given that TV penetration is very high in developed countries, the primary focus is ondeveloping countries.In respect of access to broadcast signals, Target 8 has largely been achieved. Although recent data are not available,terrestrial analogueue radio and TV coverage figures already stood at 95 and 89 per cent, respectively, in 2002.If satellites are taken into account, then practically the whole world is covered by broadcasting. For example, theWorldSpace system covers most of the world (except North America and Australia) with radio service through threegeostationary satellites. The beam of its AfriStar satellite, launched in 1998, covers all of Africa and has 59 channels.There are numerous DTH satellite systems in operation around the world, offering both radio and TV channels.Regarding the proportion of households with a radio, the majority of developed countries have stopped compilingthis statistic, since penetration levels are very high (usually close to 100 per cent) and there is more interest in newerICTs, particularly the Internet.In the developing world, recent data on the proportion of households with a radio (Chart 8.1) show that, in the majorityof countries, more than 75 per cent of households have a radio. Only few countries with available data, includingCameroon, India and Mongolia, have less than half of their households equipped with a radio.In some developing countries, the proportion of households with a radio is actually decreasing. This may partly beexplained by methodological issues. While, according to the ITU definition, a radio is “a device capable of receivingbroadcast radio signals….It includes a radio set integrated in a car or an alarm clock and digital audio player (MP3player), but excludes radios integrated with a mobile phone or in a computer” [Partnership, 2010] , some countriesstill collect data only on standalone radio devices.The decline in radios for some countries may also suggest that, if the conditions are right in terms of affordability,coverage, content and electricity, then households may prefer TV viewing over radio listening. Radio service hasoften been cited as the most important medium for low-income developing nations, given that it does not requireelectricity and radio sets are relatively inexpensive. Yet television seems to be more popular when available. Data forthe Philippines, for example, show that TV is the main medium for acquiring knowledge and information even thoughhousehold radio penetration was higher. 11The difficulty with radio statistics is illustrated by Bangladesh, a least developed country (LDC). As opposed to whatmay be expected, there are more households with a television in Bangladesh (30 per cent) than with radio (23 percent) [NIPORT, 2009]. 12 Adding to the confusion is the fact that more households have a mobile phone (32 per cent)than either a TV or a radio. 13 According to a study, less than a third of radios worked and only around a fifth of thepopulation listened to the radio, compared to over 60 per cent who watched television. The study notes that this maybe explained by a “rapid increase in the opportunity to watch TV in the country and the failure of the public radio toattract people.” [Golam Nabi Jewel, 2006]Despite the difficulties with radio statistics, radio continues to play an important role in many LDCs, particularly inrural areas where electricity is limited (see Box 8.2 and Chart 8.4).157

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 8.1: Proportion of households with a radio, 2007-08%1009080706050403020100Mongolia*Pakistan*India*United Arab EmiratesZimbabwe*IndonesiaCameroonSierra LeoneJordanThailandMontenegroDominican Rep.Bosnia and Herz.PhilippinesUkraineEcuadorGhanaNigeriaNamibiaBahrain*Swaziland*EgyptCosta RicaSri LankaPanamaEl SalvadorSouth AfricaMalaysiaHondurasNicaragua*PeruVenezuelaParaguayBoliviaMexicoBrazilUruguayNote: *Data refer to 2006. Data in this chart are presented for all countries where data were available, except for LDCs since they arefeatured in Chart 8.4.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database and OSILAC, ECLAC.Box 8.2: Community radioRadio remains the prevalent broadcasting device in many least developed countries (LDCs). A transistor radio does not requireelectricity and is cheaper than a television. There are initiatives to reduce the operating cost of a radio to near zero throughdevices that do not require batteries. According to Freeplay, manufacturer of a wind-up radio, people in LDCs spend on averagesix per cent of their income on batteries (USD 24/year). 14 Freeplay has distributed over 400 000 batteryless radios to some40 developing countries since 2003, directly benefiting more than six million people.While radio devices have become more affordable for the developing world, users need something to listen to, particularlysince conventional radio stations may not reach rural and remote areas. In some countries, community radio has been able tofill the void. Community radio is typically programmed and operated by local people, broadcasting informative content thatis relevant to those that live in the area.Advocates of community radio point to a measurable impact on the local population in terms of improving lives through theprovision of important information such as agricultural advice, as well as the power to effect positive behaviour change. Forexample, the Population Media Centre has community radio operations in 15 countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific andLatin America, and reaches people through soap-opera type programmes on topics such as gender, HIV and family planning.It found that the radio programmes positively influenced behaviour and were a more appropriate and cost-effective solutionthan other media. [CIMA, 2007]While some governments have a lenient attitude towards community radio, others have been more restrictive, either forbiddingit or imposing restrictive licensing conditions that include high spectrum charges for the use of radio frequencies or limitthe coverage area of broadcasts. 15158

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesChart 8.2: Proportion of households with a TV, 2002-2009(Million)1 4001 3001 2001 1001 000Number of households with a TV% households with TV2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*%79787776757473727170Note: *Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Data on the proportion of households with a TV are more widely available and comparable than radio data. By 2009,there were some 1.4 billion households with a TV around the world, providing some five billion people access to a TVat home. 16 This resulted in a household penetration of 79 per cent, up from 73 per cent in 2002 (Chart 8.2). Europe,the Americas and the CIS all have a household television penetration of over 90 per cent, while in the Arab States andAsia and the Pacific penetration stood at 82 and 75 per cent, respectively. Africa, where 28 per cent of householdshave a TV, stands out for having the lowest levels of household TV penetration (Chart 8.2).Chart 8.3: Proportion of households with a TV, by region, 2009*%1009597 979080758270605040302820100AfricaAsia and thePacificArab StatesTheAmericasCISEuropeNote: *Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.159

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio serviceshousehold television penetration higher than 50 per cent, as against half of LDCs with a household radio penetrationhigher than 50 per cent.Although radio penetration is higher in LDCs, the inconsistency of the data makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions.In Laos, as household TV penetration goes up, radio — or at least possession of simple battery-powered radios— goes down:“Household ownership increased from 31% to 41% for televisions... At the same time, ownership of radios ...went down. This should not be viewed as a sign of impoverishment. Rather, with higher income, householdssubstitute radios with televisions...” [Schoenweger, 2006].Chart 8.5: Proportion of LDC households with a TV comparedto GDP per capita (USD), 2008 (or latest availableyear)Households with a TV%10080604020R 2 = 0.5000 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000GDP per capita (USD)Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database and IMF(GDP per capita data).Chart 8.6: Proportion of LDC households with electricity, comparedto households with a TV, 2008 (or latest available year)Households with a TV%10080604020R 2 = 0.7300 20 40 60 80 100Households with electricity (%)Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database and IMF(GDP per capita data).In Tuvalu, half of the households have a TV eventhough there is no terrestrial television (seeBox 8.3).Although LDCs are the world’s poorest nations,it may be surprising that income alone does notsignificantly explain the lack of access to broadcasting,and seems to have less impact than otherfactors such as the availability of electricity anddiversity of content. Statistically, there is less of arelationship between household television ownershipand income in the LDCs than there is withelectricity (Charts 8.5 and 8.6). The importance ofelectricity and its close relationship to TV is confirmedby numerous studies: TV is typically thesecond major reason (after lighting) that householdsopt for electricity. 20Differences in household TV penetration at similarincome levels reflect the uncertainty regardingthe impact of income levels. Among the LDCs,Angola is richer than the Maldives (based on2008 GDP per capita income). Yet the Maldiveshas a household TV penetration of 39 per cent,higher than Angola, mainly due to the availabilityof electricity. Household electrification is over90 per cent in the Maldives, compared to just 38per cent in Angola. Another example is Cambodia,Haiti and Kiribati. They all have similar per capitaincomes, yet Cambodia’s household TV penetrationis over twice that of Haiti and five times morethan Kiribati. What is interesting about this exampleis that Cambodia actually has a lower householdelectrification rate than Haiti or Kiribati. ButTV content is much more abundant in Cambodia.The country has seven terrestrial channels plusa recently launched DTH service, compared tothree terrestrial channels in Haiti and no domestictelevision service in Kiribati. This vastly greateramount of content has driven Cambodian householdsto overcome a lack of grid electricity bylooking for other sources to power television sets,particularly car batteries. 21It is instructive to examine the gap betweenhouseholds with electricity and households with161

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 8.7: Gap between LDC households with electricity and households with television, %, latest availableyearDifference (D) in the proportion of households with electricity (a) and the proportion of households with a TV (b) [D=a-b]Proportion of households with a TV120Group 1: morehouseholds with a TVthan with electricityGroup 2: households havesimilar TV and electricitylevelsGroup 3: more households with electricity than with a TV80400-40CambodiaAngolaLesothoZambiaMaliMadagascarLiberiaBurkina FasoMalawiMozambiqueChadCongo D.R.TanzaniaRwandaNigerUgandaMauritaniaBeninYemenSenegalCape VerdeHaitiGuineaLao P.D.R.EthiopiaMaldivesMyanmarS. Tomé & PrincipeDjiboutiBangladeshTimor-LesteNepalKiribatiSamoaBhutanTuvaluSource: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.television in the LDCs (Chart 8.7). Many of the countries with the biggest gap — i.e. having a far higher level ofhousehold electrification penetration than household TV penetration — are in the Pacific, where there are few or nodomestic terrestrial television stations (Group 3). Although households have the electricity to power television sets,there is not enough compelling content to encourage them to own a TV. At the other extreme are countries wherehousehold television penetration exceeds electricity (Group 1). It seems that compelling broadcast content is availableto drive households to find other ways to power television sets. One such example is Cambodia, as mentionedearlier. A third group are those countries where television availability in households is close to electricity availability(Group 2). Here, the constraint seems to be both electrical and monetary. Household TV penetration rises with electricityavailability, but either there is not enough compelling content, or incomes are too low to drive the demandfor off-grid electricity or to raise television ownership above electricity availability. These insights about differentbarriers to TV uptake can help policy-makers identify barriers to higher TV penetration levels and thus make the rightpolicy decisions.In conclusion, it would be erroneous to assume that the broadcasting digital divide is attributable solely to income.Though income is indeed a barrier, particularly for the poorest of households (including in middle-income nations),data suggest that electricity is an even bigger barrier and that content, though difficult to quantify, also seems to playa major role. Steps to rectify the digital broadcasting divide must consider all these factors if they are to be successful.162

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesChart 8.8: Households with cable TV, satellite TV, and IPTV, millions, world500450400350300250200150CableSatelliteIPTV1005002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Multichannel televisionA noteworthy trend over the last decade is the development of multichannel television. The number of householdswith multichannel TV rose from 400 million in 2000 to 650 million in 2008 (Chart 8.8). Around two out of five televisionhouseholds were multichannel in 2000, compared to almost half by 2008.The increase in multichannel TV has contributed to an increase in content, which in turn has increased the demandfor television services, as exemplified by a number of countries in South Asia (Box 8.4).Cable, satellite, IPTV, terrestrial digital and mobile television are analysed in more detail below. While mobile television— because of its limited availability worldwide — is not included in the indicators to be tracked, it is an importanttechnology that could be considered in the future.Cable TVCable television (CATV) is the leading multichannel option, with 448 million CATV households around the world by2008. The statistics are somewhat misleading, though, since in some instances CATV is used to retransmit terrestrialchannels without adding any new programming. Also, in some of the biggest markets such as China and India, manycable subscriptions are analogue. However the cable industry has been reacting to increased competition from DTHsatellite and IPTV by upgrading networks. The ability to provide broadband access has also spurred cable operatorsto make the necessary improvements to their technology.China is by far the largest CATV market, accounting for some 64 per cent of the world’s subscribers. Cable is welldeveloped in the Americas, Asia and the Pacific and Europe regions, but virtually non-existent in the Arab States andAfrica. There is scarce traction to invest in new cable television networks in the Arab States and Africa, given the highcost and the success of DTH satellite TV in those regions. One drawback to the non-availability of CATV is that competitionis reduced in the multichannel TV market. This can result in higher prices for other options. The lack of CATValso means that high-speed Internet service deployed over cable modem will also be unavailable, which reducesinter-modal competition in the broadband Internet market.163

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 8.4: More multichannel, more content, more demand: examples from South AsiaAlthough the number of television households continues to grow in all developing nations, the South Asia region is particularlynoteworthy. Most of the South-Asian nations were in the top ten in the absolute increase in household TV penetration between2000 and 2008. From less than a third of households in South Asia with a television in 2000, today over half have one, includingover 75 per cent in Sri Lanka and 85 per cent in the Maldives (see Table 1 Box 8.4). Factors behind this big increase in home TVavailability include rising incomes in the region and the extension of electricity to more households. Another key parameter is anexplosion of content that has driven household demand for television. Direct-to-home (DTH) satellite broadcasting in particular haswitnessed explosive growth. Over half of the television homes in the region receive multiple channels through either cable or DTH.India is a case in point. Although it is the world’s second largest cable TV market, DTH has recorded impressive gains there. Thisis all the more striking considering that DTH only started in 2004. Today, the country has the most competitive DTH market inthe world, with six licensees. There are 12 million DTH homes receiving digital broadcasting, compared to only one million digitalcable homes (the rest are analogue systems). Some 61 per cent of India’s television homes are multichannel. The governmentbroadcaster Doordorshan has launched its own free-to-air DTH service, and all that is required to access it is a satellite dish.Although Sri Lankan homes are second only to the Maldives in the region in terms of TV set availability, the nation has laggedbehind in multichannel penetration. 22 This is beginning to change with the entry of Dialog TV, a DTH service. Launched in 2007, ithad some 120 000 subscribers by the end of 2008. The set-top box and antenna cost USD 130, but payments can be spread outover a year. The subscription for the basic service, which includes 27 channels, is one of the cheapest in the world at USD 4.35per month. Users can also customize their channel selection through numerous plans for as little as LKR 50 (less than USD 0.50).Multichannel TV has also been on the rise on other South-Asian nations. Bhutan has 52 cable TV operators and Nepal 152,whereas the Maldives has seen an impressive rise in cable and DTH homes, from less than 10 per cent of TV households in 2000to around 60 per cent today. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, almost a third of television homes are multichannel.The success of the South-Asian countries reveals that low incomes need not be a barrier to greater broadcasting access. All ofthese nations are low-income countries, including four LDCs. The South-Asian countries still have some distance to go to achieveubiquitous television in their households. But they have made impressive progress in this decade, a major factor being liberalizationof multichannel television leading to explosive growth in content which is driving demand.Table 1 Box 8.4: Television indicators for South AsiaHouseholds with TV (%)Multichannel asCountry2000 2008Change (2000-2008, or latestavailable year)% of TV households,2008Bangladesh 18 30*** 12 35Bhutan 17* 38*** 21 68India 31 55 24 61Sri Lanka 41 77*** 36 2Maldives 57 85** 28 59Nepal 11 28** 17 19Pakistan 40 58 18 31Weighted average 30 53 23 55Simple average 31 53 22 39Note: *Data refer to 2003. **Data refer to 2006. ***Data refer to 2007.Source: Adapted from Demographic and Health Survey (Bangladesh, Nepal), Zee TV (India), Department of National Planning (Maldives),BLSS (Bhutan) and CASBAA (Pakistan).164

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesSatelliteDirect-to-home (DTH) satellite broadcasting covers the world and is growing in popularity. The number of householdsaround the world with DTH satellite dishes rose from 82 million in 2000 to 177 million in 2008. 23The most rapid growth has been in developing nations, where terrestrial channels are limited and cable TV is nonexistent,or where cable systems are antiquated with limited channels and features. Digital satellite broadcastingalso offers more channels, better quality and increased functionality compared to analogue cable. Satellite offersthe possibility for most developing countries to provide nationwide broadcasting coverage. Where markets are largeenough, it is cheaper to deploy DTH than to build out a cable network. Pan-regional satellite services, which are developingacross the world (Box 8.5), help to achieve economies of scale and the large number of channels ensuresthat demand for local content is satisfied.Though some developing countries may have too small a market to justify the launch of a national system, they couldtake advantage of existing regional systems. National broadcasters can arrange to have their channels made free-toairvia DTH. For example, Nilesat carries the national channels of almost all Arab countries. On the other hand, thereare small markets which have been successful in launching DTH due to the economies of scale of incorporating awider area. Fiji TV, for example, commenced analogue television operations in 1994. A decade later it had achieved85 per cent population coverage and was catering to some 700 000 people. To cover the remaining 15 per cent wouldhave been difficult due to their remote locations and the lack of electricity. Instead, Fiji TV launched a DTH servicein 2004 called Sky Pacific, which today has 16 channels. Sky Pacific covers all of Fiji and most of the Pacific Islands,including Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau and NewCaledonia. The potential market size is around 7.6 million people, over 90 per cent of the Pacific region. In one year,coverage increased from 700 000 to over seven million. 24IPTVA relatively new option for multichannel television is Internet-Protocol TV (IPTV). This service is delivered over ahigh-speed fixed ADSL or fibre-optic connection and provided by broadband operators, directly to consumers. IPTVis a managed service, which distinguishes it from video services delivered over the public Internet. The first IPTVnetworks were launched in 2002. At the beginning of 2008, IPTV was being commercially offered in over 40 countrieswith some 9.9 million subscribers. 28Europe is the leading region for IPTV, accounting for half of all subscriptions at the start of 2008. IPTV currently haslimited potential for wide market reach in many developing countries due to inadequate fixed broadband connections.However, the vast size of some developing countries such as Brazil or China suggests that even though relativebroadband penetration is low, the sheer number of subscriptions is enough to generate interest. At the same time,although the number of broadband subscriptions may be small in other developing countries (apart from Brazil andChina), IPTV has been successful in terms of take-up: Mauritius has low IPTV penetration due to the fact that onlythree per cent of households have broadband, but 56 per cent of those broadband customers are IPTV subscribers.Digital terrestrial televisionDigital terrestrial television (DTT) provides better quality compared to analogue broadcasting. Other benefits of DTTinclude additional channels, radio stations and interactive features. 29 In order to receive DTT, analogue television antennasare replaced with digital ones. Furthermore, consumers must replace analogue televisions with a DTT-capabletelevision or purchase a set-top box. This distinguishes DTT services from cable, satellite television and IPTV, sincesubscribers to the latter services do not need to make a change if the service provider already transmits in digitalformat. 30 Given the expense of the conversion and the need to educate consumers, most governments that haveadopted DTT are phasing it in over a period of several years. They typically launch an awareness campaign to informconsumers and in some cases also provide subsidies for some people to purchase DTT receivers.At the 2006 ITU Regional Radiocommunication Conference (RRC-06), European, African and Middle Eastern nationsagreed to phase in digital broadcasting. They signed a treaty agreement calling for a nine-year phase-in of digitalbroadcasting, beginning 17 June, 2006 with analogue broadcasts to cease in 2015. According to the press releaseissued at the conference:165

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 8.5: Pan-regional direct-to-home (DTH) systems targeted at developing regionsThere are a number of regional DTH satellite services catering for several countries within the following regions:• Americas: DirectTV, the largest DTH broadcaster in the United States, also offers its services in Argentina, Brazil, Chile,Colombia, Mexico, Venezuela and other Latin American countries through its DIRECTV Latin America (DTVLA) subsidiary,using three satellites. It has leveraged its US experience to launch features such as DVRs and HD in the region. At thesame time, it has adapted to the circumstances in Latin America by launching a prepaid service, and prepaid accountedfor 8 per cent of total subscribers in 2008. DTVLA had 5.6 million subscribers in 2008, including 1.6 million in Brazil and1.8 million in Mexico. Spain’s Telefonica and Mexico’s Telmex also offer DTH service in some countries in the region.• Arab States: There are several Pan-Arab DTH services. For example, Egypt’s Nilesat, started in 1996, broadcasts over450 digital TV and over 100 radio channels of which three quarters are free-to-air. One of the features of these systemsis that they carry practically all of the main local terrestrial channels from the region. DTH service has proven very successfulin the Arab States, with over 20 million homes (i.e. over half of all households with a TV) receiving satellite signalsin 2008. 25 Factors have included a lack of cable television, synergy of a single language to leverage content and relaxedgovernment regulation of the broadcasting industry.• Africa: There are a couple of main pan-regional satellite operators in the region. Launched in 1996, South African-basedMultiChoice provides digital broadcasting in 48 sub-Saharan countries. It operates through joint ventures in Botswana,Ghana, Kenya, Namibia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia and through agents in other countries. Its Digital SatelliteTelevision service (DStv) features over 60 video channels and some 65 radio channels. It had around 700 000 subscribersin 2008 (excluding South Africa). The French Canal+ group broadcasts around the world over several satellites,including to 23 of 29 countries where French is the official language, and is using the Eutelsat satellite for broadcastingservices in sub-Saharan Africa. Direct-to-home broadcasting using 60-80 cm dishes is available in 20 western and centralAfrican countries, while programming is also available over MMDS networks or through MultiChoice in 40 African countries.There are more than 70 programmes and radio services broadcast with pricing between €8 - 65 per month. Canal+has around 950 000 subscribers in French Overseas Departments and Africa.• Asia and the Pacific: Unlike other regions, there is no major pan-regional satellite operator in the Asia and the Pacificregion. One reason is that there is a greater variety of languages in the region. Another issue has been restrictive licensingpolicies for pan-regional operators. 26 Instead, there are a number of national DTH systems, some of which attractsubscribers from neighboring countries. 27 One county where DTH has boomed is India. DTH has yet to make significantinroads into most of the predominantly Chinese-speaking economies in the region such as China, Macao (China) or Singapore.Source: ITU research.“…digitization of broadcasting in Europe, Africa, Middle East and the Islamic Republic of Iran by 2015 represents amajor landmark towards establishing a more equitable, just and people-centered information society. The digitalswitchover will leapfrog existing technologies to connect the unconnected in underserved and remote communitiesand close the digital divide.” 31European nations had already begun the switch to DTT before 2006. Some have completed the switchover and manywill have ceased analogue transmissions before 2015. Practically all Middle Eastern nations are digital-ready, insofaras the majority of their households with TVs already receive digital television through DTH satellite.Although the Africa region was a signatory at the RRC-06, it has the lowest analogue household television penetrationrates in the world and some African countries are concerned about a lack of government action for meetingthe deadline. 32 The Americas and Asia and the Pacific regions have not entered into any binding treaty agreementsregarding region-wide cutovers to DTT.In Asia and the Pacific, the developed economies are on the way to full DTT migration over the next few years. Chinaannounced its DTT standard in 2007 and provided coverage in a few cities for the 2008 Olympics. In 2008, officials an-166

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesnounced that the switchover would be completed in three to five years. 33 Although India adopted the DVB-T standardback in 1999, DTT is operational only in a few urban areas and no date has been announced for switchover. Instead,efforts seem to be focused on providing digital TV through DTH satellite.In North America, the United States completed its DTT conversion on 12 June, 2009 when analogue terrestrial broadcastsceased. In Canada, this is scheduled to happen on 31 August, 2011. In Latin America and the Caribbean, manycountries are still in the process of selecting a DTT standard or have only recently done so. Brazil has launched DTT,with the end of analogue broadcasts scheduled for 2016. 34Mobile TVThe ability to transmit live radio and television programmes to mobile handsets could eventually help to increase accessto broadcasting. A growing number of mobile handsets have the capability to create and display video images.The video can be created from a camera built into the handset, downloaded from digital cameras or the Internet, orstreamed over mobile networks. Mobile broadcasting goes a step further, by sending live programming to the mobilehandset.Mobile handsets with radio reception chips to receive domestic analogue broadcasts have been available for sometime. A more recent phenomenon is the delivery of digital TV to mobile handsets equipped with a reception chip.Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States are the trendsetters in deploying this technology.The Republic of Korea became the first country in the world to offer mobile TV in 2005. The service is delivered viaeither terrestrial or satellite digital broadcasts, using Digital Mobile Broadcasting technology (T-DMB and S-DMB) 35 ,to mobile handsets with a reception chip. The number of mobile TV users in the Republic of Korea stood at 17 millionat the end of 2008, of whom almost two million were receiving satellite broadcasts. Many other developed countrieshave followed suit. In Japan, the mobile TV service was launched in April 2006. The service is known as “1-seg” becauseit uses one of the thirteen segments that make up the Japanese digital broadcasting standard channel — IntegratedServices Digital Broadcasting-Terrestrial (ISDB-T).Mobile TV was launched in the United States in 2006, with some operators partnering with MobiTV, which providesbroadcast signals either over the existing cellular network (thus expanding the number of handsets that can be used,since a reception chip is not required) or to handsets with reception chips. MediaFLO is another mobile TV servicethat uses spectrum freed up by the digital conversion in the United States. It provides the service to mobile operators,who in turn market it to their customers. There were an estimated 11 million mobile TV viewers in the UnitedStates in 2008. [Nielsen, 2009]In Europe, a number of countries have launched mobile TV using Digital Video Broadcast-Handheld (DVB-H) technology,which provides broadcasts of live digital terrestrial television channels. Countries that have launched commercialmobile TV services include Albania, Austria, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland.Several developing countries have launched mobile TV services (see Table 8.2) and a number are conducting trials(e.g. Ghana, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay). Ironically, some countries have launched digitalmobile TV before making terrestrial digital television available.A key consideration for the mass take-up of mobile services in developing countries will be cost. The price of a TVcapablemobile handset will inevitably be higher than that of an entry-level handset on account of the need to supportvideo and, typically, for a TV signal reception chip. The decision will likely be based on the price of alternatives(e.g. a digital television set or computer) and the desirability of mobility. Service pricing will also be a fundamentalfactor. In some countries, mobile-delivered television is free, while in others there are service plans. Options such asadvertiser-sponsored programming or tiered pricing (making some channels free while charging for others) might bealternatives.Since only a limited number of countries have started launching mobile TV services by 2010 (with even fewer monitoringsubscriber numbers), no indicator has been proposed. However, the number of mobile TV subscriptions or theproportion of mobile TV subscriptions as a percentage of total mobile cellular subscriptions could be useful indicatorsin the future.167

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 8.2: Mobile TV deployments, selected developing countries, status as of 2009CountryProviderGhana T-DMB Black Star,One TouchDVB-HDStv Mobile(MTN andMultichoice)India DVB-H DoordarshanIraq DVB-H AlsumariaTVStandardChannels6 videoand 4audioPriceMonthlysubscriptioncharge GHC4 (USD 3.95)Notes... ... Accra.Accessories and the handset necessary for viewing,known as FonTV, cost GHC 350 (USD 345.66) and includefree service for the first three months. 368 Free-to-air Launched in May 2007. Currently available in Delhi.Initial handsets were around INR 30 000.20 audioandvideo1 month validityfor IQD18 000 (USD15.11)10 KES 1 000per month)(USD 12.68)Mauritius 3G Emtel 10 MUR 0.30(USD 0.10)per 100 kB... Orange 14 MUR 250(USD 7.82)Service officially launched nationwide on 28 May 2009.Pay TV based on monthly subscriptions.Based on scratch cards (prepaid).Broadcast business model: handset not “sponsored” bythe Mobile Operator (uses MicroSD cards).Covers Baghdad, Basra, Al Mousel, Diwanieh, and theKurdistan area in Northern Iraq (Duhuk, Erbil, Sulaymanieh).37Covers Nairobi and Mombasa.Broadcasting over 3G network. 38MUR 2 per minute. 39Morocco DVB-H SNRT 5 Free-to-air Launched May 2008 with coverage in Casablanca, Rabat,Oujda, Tanger and Meknès, with plans to eventuallyprovide coverage to all areas covered by terrestrialdigital TV. 40Namibia DVB-H DStv Mobile(Multichoiceand MTC)Nigeria DVB-H DStv Mobile,partnershipbetweenMTN andMultichoice.Kenya ... DStv Mobile(Multichoiceand Safaricom)PhilippinesDVB-HMobileoperatorSmart withMediaScapeViet Nam DVB-H Operatoris VTC(Viet NamMultimediaCorporation)10 ... Covers Windhoek. Launched March 2008. Samsung P910(NAD 2 499). 4110 SubscriptionfeeNGN 1 500(USD 9.85)per month,11 TV MonthlysubscriptionPHP 488(USD 10.69)9 TV and4 radioMonthlysubscriptionof USD 5Launched April 2008. Coverage in Abuja, Lagos, Ibadan.Uses ZTE F912 handset. 42Commercial launch in April 2008. Available in Manila,Baguio, Tagaytay, Batangas, Cebu, Davao. Approximately20 000 DVB-H enabled units. Works with Nokia N92offered free for postpaid. For prepaid, suggested retailprice of the Nokia N92 is PHP 22 990. 43Available in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, Haiphong.Launched December 2006.Note: “...”: no data/information available.Source: Adapted from http://www.dvb-h.org/services.htm.168

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesConclusions and recommendationsThe availability of broadcasting in terms of coverage is nearly complete, with practically the whole planet covered bya signal. Although gaps remain in terrestrial coverage in some countries, these are filled for by global satellite coverage.Coverage does not count for much, however, if it is not accompanied by the ability to purchase a receiver and listento or watch broadcasts. Here, the constraints are economic and infrastructural, and some households in developingcountries cannot afford even the cheapest of radio receivers let alone a TV set. This is all the more problematic inthat many of the poor live in rural areas where there may be no terrestrial coverage and where people would have topay an even higher price for a satellite receiver. For those who can afford the set, the lack of electric current is problematicin many rural areas of developing nations, particularly for TV reception. Nonetheless, once a set is purchased,then no other payments are necessary if there is free-to-air content available terrestrially or via satellite.In terms of the availability of devices, the target has been achieved in developed countries, since almost all householdshave a TV and a radio at home. Globally, penetration levels are relatively high for the proportion of householdswith a radio, and exceed 75 per cent in the majority of developing countries except LDCs. Only few countries, evenamongst the LDCs, have less than half of their households equipped with a radio. However, time-series data suggestthat the number of radio sets is decreasing in many developing regions, except for Africa and the LDCs, where a radiocontinues to be a very important access device. The least developed countries also continue to have higher penetrationrates for radios than for TVs, contrary to many other countries.In terms of television devices, all regions except Africa have well over half of households equipped with a TV and thetarget has been largely achieved in the Americas, the CIS and Europe, where penetration exceeds nine out of tenhouseholds. It should be considered that not every household may desire a television even if they meet all of theother conditions for possessing one (e.g. income, electricity, coverage). Moreover, broadcasting reception chips arebeing embedded in devices such as mobile handsets and computers, so some households may not need a conventionalTV set. A figure in the high nineties should therefore be considered as indicating that the target is achieved.Based on the 2005-2008 compound annual growth rate, Europe, the Americas and the CIS are expected to reach atheoretical 100 per cent household penetration of television sets before 2015, with the world average reaching almost90 per cent. Both the Arab States and the Asia and the Pacific region would surpass 90 per cent penetration by2015, while the household television penetration in Africa would reach around 40 per cent.The delivery of multichannel television has spread rapidly over the last decade and by 2008 almost every secondhousehold with a TV had multichannel services, compared to around two out of five in 2000. Some countries havealready made the transition to digital television, while others have established deadlines for some time in the nextdecade. For example, Africa, the Arab States and Europe have committed to switching to digital television by 2015.However, even if many developing nations were to meet digital TV deadlines, it is unlikely that terrestrial transmissioncoverage will be much more extensive than today’s analogue coverage, since countries only have to switch overexisting transmissions rather than build out new coverage. While terrestrial digital TV provides major improvementsover analogue, therefore, it will not result in drastically increased coverage.The biggest regional gap in broadcasting access is found in Africa. However, the high averages in other regions disguisesignificant differences in household broadcast availability across countries. In terms of development status, theLDCs have the lowest household broadcasting penetration. Of all countries in the world with a household televisionpenetration of less than 50 per cent, all were LDCs or African countries.It would be erroneous to assume that the broadcasting digital divide is due purely to income. Though income is abarrier, particularly for the poorest of households (even in middle-income nations), data suggest that electricity isan even greater barrier and that content, though difficult to quantify, also seems to play a major role. As the AsianBroadcasting Union highlighted:Viewers don’t “buy” brands or technology — they “buy” content. Technology is simply the gateway to deliver entertainmentservices and programming. 44169

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsIf they are to be successful, steps to rectify the digital broadcasting divide must consider all these factors, and anumber of conclusions can be drawn and recommendations made.In countries where there is a single government broadcaster and multichannel alternatives are either non-existent orprohibitively expensive or illegal, there is not much demand for television. On the other hand, where governmentshave adopted a liberal attitude towards broadcasting, content is more varied and households find ways to get roundincome or electricity constraints.Countries could do more to encourage more content and more competition in the provision of content. In a numberof countries, broadcasting stations are limited to government-run operators. Allowing the private sector also tooperate stations will increase demand for broadcasting and encourage government broadcasters to offer more compellingcontent. Governments should also encourage more competition in the multichannel market segment. Competitionis restricted in a number of countries, in different ways. Barriers include prohibiting satellite dishes and notallowing new pay-TV operators. These barriers raise the costs of existing multichannel platforms, inhibiting access forlow-income population segments.The transition to digital television offers potential benefits for consumers in terms of more available channels andspecial features. Although many governments are committed to moving to digital television and some have evencompleted the transition, it is unlikely that some developing countries will meet deadlines, in view of the cost ofupgrading. At the same time, is not clear why countries would want to build out terrestrial infrastructure given theubiquity of satellite. In India, for example, the cost of expanding terrestrial coverage would be high and take at leasta decade to complete. Satellite broadcasting appears to be a more reasonable option, and the national broadcasterDoordarshan has launched a free-to-air DTH service. Some 10 000 dishes have been distributed free to public institutionssuch as community centres and schools in areas not covered by terrestrial broadcasting. 45Satellite offers the possibility for most developing countries to provide nationwide broadcasting coverage. Althoughsome may have too small a market to justify the launch of a national system, they could take advantage of existingregional systems, or national broadcasters can arrange to have their channels made free-to-air via DTH.Governments might also consider the use of subsidies and other options for increasing access to terrestrial digital andmultichannel television, and a number of countries have subsidized digital terrestrial TV reception equipment. Multichanneloperators can also contribute to making services more affordable by offering free-to-air channels, providinglow-priced options and making prepaid services available.The basic indicators proposed for measuring Target 8 — household radio and television set availability — provide areasonable picture of access. However, there is also a critical qualitative aspect to this target. In a globalized world, itis insufficient to have access to local channels only. Therefore, the conversion to digital TV and the deployment andavailability of multichannel television also need to be monitored.170

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesNotes1Substantial inputs to this chapter have been provided by Michael Minges.2See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c9.3See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c2.4See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c8.5See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c3.6See: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070307_534338.htm.7See http://www.hulu.com.8See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6411017.stm.9See http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/10/36_Million_German_Internet_Users_Viewed_More_Than_6_Billion_Videos_Online_in_August_2009.10See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111603391052641.html.11In 2003, household radio penetration was 71.3%, compared to 63.1% for television. See: Philippines National Statistics Office (NSO) andORC Macro. 2004. National Demographic and Health Survey 2003. Calverton, Maryland: NSO and ORC Macro.12National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT, 2007), Mitra and Associates, and Macro International.2009. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland, United States:National Institute of Population Research and Training, Mitra and Associates, and Macro International.13A mobile operator in the country recently launched a mobile phone with an integrated FM radio as well as camera for BDT 3 199 (USD45). “Grameenphone launches GP-branded handset,” Press Release, 31 August, 2009.14See http://www.freeplayenergy.com/aid-and-development.15See id21insights, Voices for change. Tuning in to community radio, id21 insights, no. 58. November 2005. Available from:http://www.eldis.org/id21ext/publications/index.html.16See: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/Telecom09_flyer.pdf.17See http://archive.salon.com/tech/view/2000/07/24/dot_tv/index.html.18See http://ftp.isc.org/www/survey/reports/current/report.byname.19See http://www.mediascape.ac.nz/cms/index.php?page=tuvalu-media.20See http://go.worldbank.org/CBT6X32PL0.21According to the Cambodian Renewable Energy & Rural Electrification project, “in 85% of the villages, car batteries are the most commonsources of electricity. Almost 55% of households use a battery and about 32% of the households have a B/W TV set,” see:http://www.recambodia.org/energoverview.htm.22One reason has been a high number of free-to-air terrestrial channels with two main government-run and eight private TV stations. SeeBBC News. Media. Sri Lanka country profile. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1168427.stm#media.23Based on ITU data and data published by ASTRA (http://www.ses-astra.com) and EUTELSAT ( http://www.eutelsat.com).24See http://www.cba.org.uk/conferences_and_events/2006_CBA_conference/documents/mesakenawari.pdf.25The explosion of television channels in Arab countries is leaving some viewers bewildered. Seehttp://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20090827040916/Ramadan%20ratings%20war%20grips%20Tunisian%20TV%20market.26For example, Skywave, a regional DTH subsidiary of AsiaSat, provides service in Hong Kong (China) and Macau (China) but business “...remainedstatic in 2008, and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future, on account of the highly restricted market in which it operates.”See AsiaSat 2008, Annual Report.27See http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/tata-sky-dishtv-dubai.asp.28See http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/04-18-2008/0004795720&EDATE.29In the United Kingdom, users can receive 20 DTT channels (instead of only four with analogue television), ten radio stations and text servicessuch as TV listings and interactivity. See http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/19583/10-16-07_whitehaven_preswitch.pdf.30For example, Luxembourg found it easy to switch over to DTT since almost all of its households were already receiving digital signalsthrough cable and satellite subscriptions. See www.mediacom.public.lu.31See http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/11.html.32See: http://www.postzambia.com/content/view/9929/61/.171

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets33See http://www.hktdc.com/info/mi/a/bacn/en/1X002ILX/1/Business-Alert-China/Digital-Terrestrial-TV-To-Cover-Entire-China-In-Three-To-Five-Years.htm.34See http://www.teleco.com.br/tvdigital.asp.35See http://eng.t-dmb.org.36See http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146267/ghana_is_now_home_for_digital_mobile_tv.html.37See http://www.mobision.tv/en/we-are-mobision-your-mobile-tv.html.38See http://emtel-ltd.com/3g.php?category=19.39See http://www.orange.mu/mobile/mobile_tv.php.40See http://snrt.wmaker.net/La-SNRT-deploie-le-reseau-de-la-Television-Mobile-Personnelle-DVB-H_a6986.html?print=1.41See http://www.mtc.com.na/cell_pop.php?page_id=25.42See http://www.mtnonline.com/index.php/dstvmobile.html.43See http://smart.com.ph/gold/services/MyTV_FAQs.htm.44http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_im_ge_09/sccr_im_ge_09_presentation5.ppt.45“What is DD DIRECT+ ?,” DDI News. http://www.ddinews.gov.in/DTH/DDDIRECT (accessed 4 September, 2009).172

Target 8: Ensure that all of the world’s population have access to television and radio servicesReferencesArbitron Radio Listening Report (2008), The Infinite Dial 2008: Radio’s Digital Platforms, Edison Media Research,2008.Nabi Jewel, G. (2006), Community Radio: Ready to launch in Bangladesh. Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio andCommunication, November 2006.Centre for International Media Assistance (CIMA, 2007), Community Radio: Its Impact and Challenges to its Development,Working Group Report, 2007.Central Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance, Economic Planning & Industries, Tuvalu Government (Tuvalu, 2006),Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2004/2005: Final Report, September 2006.Nielsen (2009), Television, Internet and Mobile Usage in the U.S. A2/M2 Three Screen Report, 1st Quarter 2009.National Institute of Population Research and Training (NIPORT, 2009), Mitra and Associates, and Macro International,2009. Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2007. Dhaka, Bangladesh and Calverton, Maryland,United States.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010), Core ICT Indicators 2010, Geneva.Schoenweger, O. (2006), Imported Mass Media and Communication Services and Product in the Lao PDR — Socialand Economic Impacts. UNDP, 2006. Available at: http://www.nsc.gov.la/NHDR.htm.173

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsTarget 9: Encourage the development ofcontent and put in place technical conditionsin order to facilitate the presence anduse of all world languages on the Internet 1IntroductionInternet access is the physical precondition for being able to use the Internet and enjoy its benefits. With the rapidgrowth in the number of Internet users, reaching an estimated 26 per cent of the world’s population by the end of2009 [ITU, 2010], the amount of content 2 on the Internet has also been increasing, boosted by broadband Internetapplications and the emergence of Web 2.0 3 and social networks. There are no agreed figures for the number ofwebpages, 4 but the best testimony to the incredible size of the web is the fact that search engines have now ceasedindexing a significant portion of it.Internet access is only part of the story, however. The true essence of the Internet is that it fosters communicationbetween humans (and with networked objects), and allows them to obtain and exchange meaningful information.This raises the question of the relationship between content and users. It is imperative that all users worldwideshould be able to find Internet content which is meaningful to them. Hence, this content has to be available in theirmother tongue, which in turn means that content in local languages is required.This is the issue of linguistic diversity in cyberspace addressed by WSIS Target 9. The aim is to achieve the greatestpossible diversity in order to serve the online needs of people everywhere. This is a relevant and indeed pressing issuefor establishing a global information society, since it is directly linked to the basic principle of equality of rights insociety, and indirectly to the ecology of cyberspace.UNESCO, which conducted the process that culminated in the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of theDiversity of Cultural Expressions [UNESCO, 2005], is coordinating WSIS Action Line C8, which identifies many prioritiesto be considered for achieving the target, including the following: 5175

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• Develop and implement policies that preserve, affirm, respect and promote diversity of cultural expression andindigenous knowledge and traditions through the creation of varied information content.• Support local content development, translation and adaptation, digital archives, and diverse forms of digitaland traditional media by local authorities.• Provide content that is relevant to the cultures and languages of individuals in the information society.• Nurture the local capacity for the creation and distribution of software in local languages, as well as contentthat is relevant to different segments of population.• Cooperate with indigenous peoples and traditional communities to enable them to more effectively use andbenefit from the use of their traditional knowledge in the information society.• Promote technologies and research in such areas as translation, iconographies, voice-assisted services and thedevelopment of necessary hardware and a variety of software models, including proprietary, open-source softwareand free software, such as standard character sets, language codes, electronic dictionaries, terminologyand thesauri, multilingual search engines, machine-translation tools, internationalized domain names, contentreferencing as well as general and application software.Some of the recommendations in Action Line C8 are directly aimed at indigenous populations, who are generally notwell represented on the Internet and deserve special attention. Most of the action line refers directly to ways of fosteringor encouraging the development of content (or the translation of existing content), and some provisions alsoaddress the crucial issue of software. Other WSIS targets, such as Target 4 (Connect public libraries, cultural centres,museums, post offices and archives with ICTs) also have a direct link to Target 9 in promoting linguistic diversity andlocal content online.Target 9 and the corresponding action lines are set in an extremely fast-changing context, with rapid growth ofInternet users and content. As a result of the concept of users evolving to include objects, 6 the current Internet Protocoladdressing scheme has been stretched to its limits, and IPv6 7 has been implemented (besides other protocolimprovements) in order to change the order of magnitude of the possible number of different networked entities, 8which will allow this exponential growth to continue for many years to come.The persistence of the so-called “digital divide” [ITU, 2010] is also, at least partly, related to the issue of languagesand content on the Internet, in particular with regard to online equality [Pimienta, 2009). Equality is often interpretedin terms of physical access, focusing on the gap between those who have access to the technology and those whohave not. Policies have been set accordingly to increase access, for example by putting in place shared resources (e.g.telecentre projects and community access points — see also Targets 1 and 4), more affordable technologies (e.g. lowcostPCs) or more pervasive technologies (e.g. cell phones).However, in order to reduce the digital divide, barriers beyond mere access also need to be addressed to give allusers the potential to benefit from information and communication. Users need the skills to use the technology andexploit the benefits it offers. 9 The issue of content availability in the user’s language is fundamental: without content,access itself becomes useless. There is no simple technological or practical answer for content production in cyberspace,an activity which mirrors the complexity inherent in the economic behaviour of individuals. 10 While ICT4D 11specialists tend to agree that local content production 12 is desirable, the question of how to provide incentives toachieve it in practice remains unresolved, for now.One reason for the relatively low policy priority given to this issue is the lack of indicators on languages on the Internet.To date, the digital divide has often been measured in terms of access rather than use and content, even thoughthe divides for the latter two are likely to be greater than the access divide.For example, while Africa accounted for two per cent of total Internet users in 2007 (and 11 per cent of the world’spopulation), its share of content production, in both national and local languages, was even lower. Furthermore, only0.6 per cent of total worldwide content in English or French was in African servers (as estimated by FUNREDES/UnionLatine). 13 The Language Observatory Project (LOP) 14 estimated that the percentage of webpages accounted for by localAfrican languages (or at least the small subset of them which are localized) 15 ranged from 0.06 per cent to 0.006176

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsper cent of total Internet content. Even though in some cases these rates may have increased somewhat since then,they are likely to have remained very low. In the case of local languages, the proportion may even be smaller, giventhe speed of growth of Internet content in the main languages present on the Internet.Some people consider English as a lingua franca 16 in the digital world, thus minimizing the importance of the issue oflinguistic diversity and the availability of local content. However, while English is a major language for business or scienceand the official language of many countries in Asia and Africa, it has been estimated that less than 15 per cent ofthe world’s population understand it. 17 Furthermore, in many countries where English is the official language, a largeproportion of the population does not actually use it (the same holds true for the use of French in many francophoneAfrican countries or in Haiti, for example). If meaningful access to the digital world is considered a prerequisite forbecoming an active citizen of the information society, then the issues of access and content in local languages ormother tongue are central to democracy in the information society.Evidence from UNESCO studies 18 suggests that not being educated in one’s mother tongue is a serious handicap. Ifthe Internet, which has become an important indirect source of information and knowledge and a practical componentin education systems, is meant to be for everyone, then it must speak everyone’s language, again highlightingthe importance of this target.The top barriers to ICT uptake, or reasons cited for not having the Internet at home, are a lack of perceived need; cost(of equipment and/or service); and a lack of skills [European Commission, 2009]. The results from a recent survey bythe US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also highlight that, in order to further increase connectivity, it isnecessary to teach people who are not yet connected how to navigate the web and find online information that isvaluable to them, so that they learn to appreciate the benefits offered by connectivity [Horrigan, 2010] (see Box 9.1).Given that a lot of content on the Internet, and “Internet-related vocabulary,” is in English (or at least this might bethe perception), 19 countries with higher levels of English language scores could be expected to have higher Internetadoption. There is indeed a positive correlation between the percentage of households with the Internet and thenumber of Internet users, on the one hand, and proficiency in English, on the other, as proxied by TOEFL 20 scores. 21This shows that being able to understand and use English terms could be a factor in Internet uptake and highlightsthe importance of increasing the number of languages on the Internet.Target 9 deals with two separate but related issues: first, the ability to use a given language on the Internet, and second,the provision of appropriate content. The first can be addressed with technical solutions, whereas the secondrequires a comprehensive set of conditions, many of which are not purely technical. It is one thing to ensure that thetechnical conditions for a language to be used on the Internet (localization) are in place, 22 but another for this languageto gain all the attributes of major languages on the Internet (full representation). See Box 9.2 for more details.Box 9.1: Understanding digital conceptsIn addition to a lack of information about the benefits that can be obtained from using the Internet and a lack of digital literacyskills, the level of English language skills and the availability of local content could also be related factors in Internet usage levels,especially as English is sometimes considered as the lingua franca of the Internet. Using the recent US FCC survey results, [Horrigan,2010] finds that even in the United States where English is the first language, broadband users exhibit varying degrees of understandingof digital concepts, which, in turn, influences what they do online. For example, survey respondents received a series ofquestions asking them how well they understood various terms related to computers and the Internet. The following shares ofbroadband users said they understood the listed terms very well: refresh or reload — 61 per cent, operating system — 44 per cent;Internet browser cookie — 42 per cent; JPEG file — 41 per cent; spyware or malware — 40 per cent; and widget — 16 per cent.The study found that those with greater understanding of these terms were more intensive users of the Internet. Some 29 per centof broadband users said they did not understand any of the listed terms very well, while 24 per cent understood five or six of theterms very well. The former group was found to be doing only about half of the online activities that the better informed group did.These findings suggest that skills, including language skills, play a role in how the Internet is being used.177

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 9.2: Requirements for the presence of languages on the InternetThere are many requirements for full representation of a language in cyberspace. A codification scheme for the alphabet andan appropriate keyboard layout are necessary but not sufficient conditions. Indeed, there is a set of conditions which, combinedwith an appropriate policy framework, will eventually permit the existence of content commensurate in just proportionwith a language’s population of speakers. These are [Diki Kidiri, 2007]:• a written form for the language (languages which are only oral do not receive the full range of benefits of digital processing); 23• a comprehensive codification for the alphabet and fonts (for reading and writing of documents);• basic linguistic software for the language (word processor, e-mail management, messaging, browsing);• a supported keyboard with the alphabet of the language;• advanced linguistic software (for spellchecking, syntax checking, alternative choices for sequence of letters, online dictionaries,etc.);• accessibility resources in the language for users with disabilities (such as software for the blind);• human resources trained to perform the (above) activities of creation and implementation;• an informed and motivated user community driving content production (this in turn drives indirect requirements for educationpackages in the language for digital literacy, information literacy and content production);• comprehensive content responding to the needs of the user community;• content duly indexed by existing search engines (or alternative search engines specialized in the language);• articulation with other languages (in particular, translation software from/to a set of other languages);• sufficient funding from governments or international organizations to support the process leading to the fulfilment of allthese conditions.The task of achieving this target is complex and can only be fully accomplished with the involvement of all stakeholders.Indeed, a sufficient number of users have to be more than just content consumers, and also take responsibilityfor content production, generating culturally meaningful content and useful services (for example for online commerceand tourism). User involvement would ideally occur as a bottom-up process, but for many languages the criticalmass is not present and other key elements may be lacking, such as the existence of qualified leaders who pull theprocess and/or the existence of a government sensitive to the importance of the issue and willing to put in place theappropriate policies and incentives, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.Measuring Target 9 — Proposed indicatorsInternationally comparable and recent data on languages and content on the Internet are not widely available. Indicatorson access to ICTs are more readily available than indicators on the use of ICTs, ICT skills or digital and informationliteracy. 24 This dearth of indicators may also have contributed to a relative lack of policy attention givento supporting linguistic diversity on the Internet. Measurement of languages on the Internet is also complicated bytechnical difficulties, which are likely to worsen over time as the Internet continues to expand in size.To measure this target, initial focus could be placed on collecting two basic indicators:1. Proportion of Internet users by language2. Proportion of webpages by language (Box 9.3)These indicators could also be collected for different Internet “subspaces” such as the blogosphere, social networksand newsgroups. Ideally, a breakdown by user characteristics (country, region, gender, age, family of languages)would also be available, and compiled at regular intervals so as to follow the rapidly evolving trends in cyberspace.178

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsBox 9.3: Measuring the number of webpages by languageThe basic method for measuring the percentage of webpages in a given language involves crawling the space to be measuredand applying identification and counting techniques. Basically, if the language has a specific script for encoding, the pages arecounted from that parameter. If the same script is shared by many languages (like for instance the Latin script), a languagerecognitionalgorithm is required to identify the different languages sharing the same script.The major inconvenience of this method is the time required to crawl. Today, this factor even makes the method prohibitiveas the size of the space to be crawled expands indefinitely. Alternative techniques are required to apply the crawling methodin a smaller space while remaining statistically representative. Some methods use a small randomly obtained sample of theweb, but the result is statistically questionable.LOP focuses on minority languages in top-level domains only (even removing countries with too large a webspace like China).Results, even if they are not fully representative, have shown a very low penetration of local languages on the web for Asianand African languages. It has been demonstrated [Nandasara et al, 2008] [Suzuki et al, 2002], that the local language percentagesfollow “Zipf’s Law” — the n-th ranked language speaker is one n-th of the population of the top-ranked language. Thissuggests that the number of webpages written in each language follows a progressive power-law curve where the order ofmagnitude of presence of local languages continues to decrease; the authors refer to this as the “digital language divide.”Finally, other methods have applied the power of search engines to a set of words which are carefully selected to hold the bestsemantic and syntactic equivalence across languages. This is the approach that has been followed by FUNREDES/Union Latine,which was able to offer consistent measurements, with more complex indicators, between 1998 and 2007, albeit only for asubset of languages. The continuing expansion of the size of the web is showing the limits of all of these methods, however,and further discussion is required to identify ways to produce reliable figures.For more details see [Paolillo, et al. 2005] and [Pimienta, 2008].However, a number of additional indicators would be required as well in order to measure linguistic diversity incyberspace fully. These indicators should, ideally, reflect the behaviour of end users with regard to languages in cyberspace.This includes considerations such as: users’ mother tongue and second languages spoken, language set forsoftware interfaces, percentage of e-mails read or written by language, percentage of visited webpages by language.Indirect indicators could also be complied, for example, by looking at the online availability of e-government informationand applications in different languages, and to what extent related applications are available for minorities orimmigrants in their mother tongue.Status of Target 9Unfortunately, the field of linguistic diversity indicators is still in its infancy and data are scant. Before looking at thelanguages that can be found on the Internet, it is useful to get an overall picture of languages in today’s world. Themost recent indicative figures on living languages in the world are given in Table 9.1, and the regional distribution inChart 9.1. A country-level comparison of the number of Internet users and the number of living languages suggeststhat there is a correlation between Internet penetration rates and language diversity, many countries (for example,in Africa) with low Internet penetration having high language diversity, and vice versa.Overall, the following facts can be reported about the state of languages in the world as at 2009: 25• 1 per cent of languages are spoken by at least 10 million people• 1 per cent of languages are spoken by 94 per cent of world population• 96 per cent of languages are spoken by 4 per cent of world population• More than 50 per cent of languages are spoken by less than 10 000 people179

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 9.1: Distribution of languages by number of first-language speakers, 2009Population range Living languages SpeakersNumber % Number %100 million to 1 billion 8 0.1 2 308 548 848 38.710 million to 100 million 77 1.1 2 346 900 757 39.41 million to 10 million 304 4.4 951 916 458 16.0100 000 to 1 million 895 13.0 283 116 716 4.810 000 to 100 000 1 824 26.4 60 780 797 1.01 000 to 10 000 2 014 29.2 7 773 810 0.1100 to 1 000 1 038 15.0 461 250 0.0110 to 100 339 4.9 12 560 0.01 to 10 133 1.9 521 0.0Unknown 277 4.0TOTAL 6 909 100 5 959 511 717 100Source: [Lewis, 2009].Chart 9.1: Regional distribution of languages, 2009Percentage of languages*Percentage of speakers**Pacific 18.1Africa 30.5Europe 26.1Pacific 0.1Africa 12.2Americas 0.8Europe 3.4Asia 33.6Americas 14.4Asia 60.8Note: * Living languages that originate in the specified area. ** People who use languages that originate in the specified area as their firstlanguage regardless of where in the world they may live.Source: [Lewis, 2009].• 70 per cent of languages are spoken in only 20 (developing) countries• Less than one third of languages have a written form. 26There is no straightforward way of mapping these languages onto their online existence as there are very few dataand indicators on the state of languages online.Indeed, indicators of linguistic diversity in cyberspace are very limited. A visual representation of the relative numberof languages represented in various ways in the virtual world, compared to the number of living languages in the realworld, is given in Figure 9.1.180

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsFigure 9.1: Key figures for languages on the Internet, 201041Number oflanguagesrecognizedby Google271(number of languageswith Wikipedia entries)500(estimated number of localized languages)7 000(number of languages still in use in the world)Note: There is no agreement among demo-linguists 27 on the size of the language universe, but the figures usually range between 6 000and 9 000. Differences are explained by the difficulty of defining the distinction between a dialect and a language. The number oflocalized languages is an estimate.Source: Ethnologue, SIL International (Summer Institute of Linguistics), Wikipedia and Google.Technically, measuring the online presence of languages is complicated. Unicode 28 does not encode languagesbut scripts, a script being a collection of characters, some of which could be shared by different languages. Inmany cases, a single script may be used to write tens or even hundreds of languages (e.g. the Latin script). Inother cases, only one language employs a particular script (e.g. Hangul, which is used only for the Korean language).29 The approximate figure of 500 localized languages represents, therefore, the set of languages whosecharacter sets are covered by the set of 140 scripts which have been encoded so far, 90 of them related to writtenlanguages.One of the striking developments since the conclusion of WSIS is the growth of user-driven content and the emergenceof social networking sites. Although it is not possible to ascertain from available data whether the sites wereaccessed in local languages, the Asia and the Pacific region registered the largest number of unique visitors betweenJune 2007 and June 2008 (Table 9.2). The Middle East and Africa showed the strongest growth in the numbers ofunique visitors (66 per cent), followed by Europe (35 per cent) and Latin America (33 per cent), though the MiddleEast and Africa and Latin America are growing from much lower numbers. According to Facebook’s Timeline [Facebook,2010a], the number of active users grew from one million people in December 2004 to 400 million in February2010. Of the active users, 100 million access Facebook through mobile devices [Facebook, 2010b]. Facebook isgrowing strongly in the Asia and Pacific region and at the start of 2010, for example, there were 17 million users inIndonesia with a monthly growth rate of 13 per cent. Other high growth rates were observed for India and Thailand(both 12 per cent) and Malaysia (10 per cent) [Facebook, 2010c].Given the significance of user-driven content, it is also important to look at the linguistic representation of socialnetworking sites, for example. Thus, as of early 2010, 52 languages were available for translation in Google translate,and the Internet browsers Internet Explorer and Mozilla supported 63 and 70 languages, respectively. Furthermore,many “international” websites, such as Amazon, eBay, Google and Facebook, now propose localized versions, oftenalso in local languages. Thus, Facebook was available in 67 languages, Blogger in 50, Youtube in 19, Flickr in 8, Twitterin 6, and Linkedin in 4 languages.181

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 9.2: Growth of social networking sites, by region, June 2007-June 2008, .Total worldwide audience, age 15+, home and work locationsUnique visitors (thousands)June 2007 June 2008 Percentage changeWorldwide 464 437 580 510 25%Asia and the Pacific 162 738 200 555 23%Europe 122 527 165 256 35%North America 120 848 131 255 9%Latin America 40 098 53 248 33%Middle East and Africa 18 226 30 197 66%Source: comScore World Metrix [ComScore, 2008).Microsoft also plans to translate Windows 7 and Office 2010 into a further 59 local languages by June 2011, in additionto the 101 languages (including Azeri, Georgian, Macedonian, Uzbek, Bosnian, Punjabi and Kyrgyz) into which itsmost popular software packages have already been translated. 30Chart 9.2: Top ten languages on the Internet, 2009English464Chinese321Spanish131Japanese 94French 74Portuguese 73German 65Arabic 41Russian 38Korean 37All the rest2580 100 200 300 400 500Internet users (millions)Source: Internet World Stats, www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.html.As the field of linguistic diversity indicators is stillin its infancy, the only indicator which has beenavailable thus far (and without any reliable degreeof precision) is the distribution of Internetusers by language. This was offered, with a transparentmethodology, by Globalstat, until 2005, 31and subsequently by Internetworldstats, althoughlimited only to the figures for the top ten languagesin terms of users (Chart 9.2), and without muchinformation on the methodology and sources. 32Some of these figures are available over time.Between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of English-speakingInternet users 33 has dropped from80 per cent to around 30 per cent, 34 reflecting thefact that non-English speakers are increasinglygetting online.As for the number of webpages per language, thepublished data have shown huge discrepanciessince the first studies published back in 1996 (see[Pimienta et al, 2010] for more details).The most promising effort has been made by LOP,which has been able to produce unique figures for minority languages in top-level domains of Africa and Asia. However,the rapidly increasing size of the web makes it more and more difficult to crawl entire top-level domains. The mostconsistent publisher of data, and the only one with the capacity to produce indicators by subcategories, has beenFUNREDES/Union Latine. However, its scope is limited to Latin languages, German and English, and, unfortunately,as its methodology is based on search engines, since 2007 it is no longer in a position to produce reliable figures.Indeed, in recent years the indexes of search engines have stopped reflecting a substantial proportion of the onlineuniverse and the results are beginning to show obvious biases and errors in their search occurrence counting figures.Therefore, just as Internet stakeholders are starting to acknowledge the importance of the production of reliable indicatorsfor linguistic diversity in order to set policies and measure their impact, the task of producing such indicators182

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsis becoming even more difficult. New creative approaches are urgently required in order to overcome the technicalbarriers to measurement created by the exponential growth of cyberspace.It is also possible to look at what can be referred to as “linguistic productivity,” given by the number of webpages ina given language divided by the number of Internet users in that language. This could offer an indicator of contentproduction.The FUNREDES/Union Latine studies have produced indications of the production of webpages per language 35 (Tables9.3 and 9.4). A comparison of the figures over time shows that productivity initially rises in the phase of Internetuser growth, and subsequently declines once a certain penetration threshold has been reached. This supports thehypothesis that increasing user access could be the first step towards content creation, followed by digital literacyprogrammes focusing on why and how to create content in cyberspace. The studies have shown, for instance, thatFrench content was first driven by Quebec, then by Belgium and Switzerland and finally by France, following thegrowth of Internet penetration in the respective countries. With respect to Spanish content, Portuguese-speakingBrazil produced more Spanish content than most of the smallest countries of Latin America. In 2001, the US producedone tenth of the number of webpages in Spanish produced by Spain, although at that time it had more SpanishspeakingInternet users than Spain. At the same time, Mexico, a country with the highest immigrant population in theUS, has a very low content productivity. The findings could be used to design language policies in cyberspace. For example,Spanish content would have been boosted by programmes targeting content production by Spanish-speakingimmigrants in the US. Finally, Germany, where English is not the first language, shows an extremely high productivityof English webpages, and, in fact, all OECD countries are producing a significant proportion of their pages in English. 36Table 9.3: Production of webpages in French, by region and by country, 2007(percentage of pages — productivity*)By countryBy regionFrance 60% — 1.1 Europe 75%Canada 20% — 1.1 America 22%Belgium 7% — 0.6 Africa / Arab States 0.3%Switzerland 5% — 0.9 Asia / Pacific 0.2%Other 8% — 0.8 Other 2%Note: * Computed as the ratio of % of production per % of Internet users in the given language.Source: FUNREDES/Union Latine.Table 9.4: Production of webpages in other languages, by country, 2007(percentage of pages — productivity*)Spanish English PortugueseSpain 56 % — 3.4 United States 66 % — 1.0 Brazil 71 % — 0.9United States 10 % — 0.4 United Kingdom 7 % — 0.6 Portugal 15 % — 1.0Argentina 9 % — 0.9 Canada 4 % — 0.7 United States 4 % — 5.0Mexico 8 % — 0.5 Australia 2 % — 0.3 Spain 4 % — 3.7Germany 1 % — 39.0Note: * Computed as the ratio of % of production per % of Internet users in the given language.Source: FUNREDES/Union Latine.183

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTable 9.5: Twenty ccTLDs with the strongest average annual growth of registrations, 2005-2009ccTLD CAGR 05-09* % ccTLD/population2009**1 Former Soviet Union su 102.4 na2 China cn 95.9 1.03 Tajikistan tj 88.2 0.34 Viet Nam vn 77.5 0.15 Russia ru 55.8 1.76 India in 54.4 0.07 Réunion re 52.7 0.48 Iran (I.R.) ir 49.4 0.29 Venezuela ve 48.8 0.510 Poland pl 44.5 4.111 Latvia lv 41.0 3.512 France fr 40.0 2.513 Portugal pt 39.4 2.714 Guadeloupe gp 39.1 0.315 Lithuania lt 39.0 3.316 Palestinian Authority ps 36.1 0.117 Bosnia and Herzegovina ba 35.3 0.318 Kenya ke 34.1 0.019 Albania al 32.8 0.120 Peru pe 31.1 0.1Note: * India 05-08; ** India 2008. CAGR: Compound Annual Growth Rate.Source: ITU, based on data provided by ZookNIC: www.zooknic.com.Another way of monitoring the development of local content is by using country code top-level domains (ccTLDss) 37 registeredin each country as a proxy. 38 This is based on the assumption that domain-name registration reflects to some extentthe availability of local web presence and hence local content even though it provides no information about the languagesused. Based on the 98 countries for which data were available in both 2005 and 2009 (or 2008 in some cases), the 20ccTLDs displaying the strongest average annual growth rates between 2005 and 2009 (except India: 2008) are given in Table9.5. Most of the countries concerned are growing from very low starting levels, even though in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania,Portugal and France there are already more than two ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants.The 20 ccTLDs with the highest growth rates for the number of ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants between 2005 and2009 are given in Table 9.6. Some of the countries where the number of registrations per 100 inhabitants was already highin 2005 continued to experience strong growth. Many of the relatively smaller European countries may be found in this list.If ccTLDs are accepted as a proxy for the availability of local content, a greater number of ccTLD registrations per100 inhabitants could be expected to be statistically associated with higher levels of household Internet usage.Plotting Internet users per 100 inhabitants against the number of ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants for 2009(Chart 9.3) shows a positive correlation (Spearman rank correlation = 0.8, and very highly statistically significant).This shows that there is indeed a rather strong statistical association between these two variables, pointing to the184

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsTable 9.6: The twenty countries with the largest increase in ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants, 2005-2009Country% ccTLD/population2005% ccTLD/population2009Difference .(percentage points)1 Netherlands 10.0 21.2 11.22 Switzerland 9.9 17.8 7.93 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 0.9 8.4 7.54 Denmark 11.6 18.6 7.05 Sweden 4.1 9.8 5.76 United Kingdom 7.3 12.8 5.57 Austria 5.5 10.6 5.18 Luxembourg 4.5 9.6 5.09 Germany 11.1 15.9 4.910 Belgium 4.5 8.9 4.511 Australia 2.9 7.1 4.212 Norway 5.3 9.2 3.913 New Zealand 4.9 8.8 3.914 Czech Republic 2.1 5.8 3.715 Iceland 4.5 8.2 3.616 Poland 0.9 4.1 3.217 Greenland 4.4 7.2 2.818 Faroe Islands 3.2 6.0 2.819 Estonia 2.5 5.3 2.820 Hungary 2.0 4.8 2.7Source: ITU, based on data provided by ZookNIC: www.zooknic.com.potential importance of providing local content for Internet use. Just as local languages are important, the availabilityof local content can also be considered key to Internet development and for achieving Internet and ICT-relateddevelopment goals.It is not known in which languages these domains exist. However, efforts to measure Internet webpages in certainlanguages 39 over several years also point to a correlation between the growth in the number of users and the growthof content. Nevertheless, over time, and as the Internet user penetration rate becomes higher, the correlation diminishesand less content per user is produced. This suggests that promoting user-created content is a good candidatefor policy consideration, at least in the early stages of Internet and local content development.Comparison of the production of webpages in Spanish and French shows a higher production of webpages in French,which could be interpreted as the result of policies to boost content creation such as those developed by the OrganisationInternationale de la Francophonie. 40 See also Box 9.4.Local content creation also requires more basic digital and information literacy as key components of digital inclusionpolicies. Appropriate education and technical training could encourage new Internet users to be both producersand consumers of content, sometimes referred to as “prosumers.” Beyond formal education systems, libraries canalso have an important role to play in promoting digital and information literacy and in creating local content, thusestablishing a strong linkage between Targets 9 and 4.185

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 9.3: Internet users and ccTLD registrations per 100 inhabitants, 2009*25ccTLDs per 100 inhabitants201510500 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Internet users per 100 inhabitantsNote: *This includes the 98 countries for which data were available both in 2005 and 2009 (or in some cases 2008). The 2009 Internetusers penetration rates are ITU estimates.Source: ITU, based on Eurostat and national sources and data provided by ZookNIC: www.zooknic.com.Box 9.4: Active policies to boost content creation: The case of CatalanIn 2006, an original generic name was created “to serve the needs of the Catalan linguistic and cultural community on the Internet.”41 It is an interesting case, since Catalan is a fascinating success story of how a language which had been threatened duringthe years when Spain was ruled by dictatorship has been able, through appropriate linguistic policies, to make a completerevival. The result of measurements of Catalan webpages in 2006 and 2007 by FUNREDES/Union Latine (see http://funredes.org/lc) has shown a productivity greater than that of Spanish worldwide, though not greater than that of Spanish in Spain,and it was too soon to measure a strong impact in terms of Catalan content progression. Indeed .cat is the first TLD intendedto promote a given language and its results in terms of boosting the presence of Catalan on the web deserve to be followedcarefully as lessons can be learnt for other languages.It is not known whether the existence of a specific top-level domain would trigger content creation in a given language, but thepromotion effect alone could be an important factor, as witnessed by proposals which have been inspired by .cat, for Welsh(.cym) or Quebec (.qc).Conclusions and recommendationsAlthough there is still a long way to go before achieving Target 9, a huge step has been accomplished with the WSISprocess insofar as the issue of linguistic diversity has been acknowledged and has been given much higher priority onthe global Internet-related policy agenda.This is the result of a combination of several factors. Many players in the field have worked to draw attention to theissue of linguistic diversity on the Internet, from governments (like the Canadian Government International Develop-186

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsment Research Centre, IDRC 42 in Asia 43 and Africa 44 with its Pan programmes) to civil society (like, for instance, theWorld Network for Linguistic Diversity, MAAYA). 45 The drastic changes in Internet demographics in recent years havealso contributed to raising awareness of this issue, especially the rapid increases in the number of Internet users fromthe Asia and Pacific and the Arab States regions.Until recently, the (technical) complexity of the issue and measurement costs, coupled with the idea that English canact as a lingua franca for the Internet, have held back progress on this target. However, attitudes are changing andthe subject has gained higher visibility at the last three annual meetings of the Internet Governance Forum, which isdriving WSIS multistakeholder participation, and at the WSIS Forum meetings held annually in Geneva. 46Some changes have already taken place. The issue of internationalized domain names (IDN) has received considerableattention. More than half of the 1.7 billion people who use the Internet speak languages with non-Latin scripts, 47highlighting the importance of making provision to support all languages on the Internet. In 2009, the Internet Corporationfor Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved plans to open up Internet domain names to non-Latinscript characters and allow domain names in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts.The implementation of domain names in local languages, which is now under way, is likely to increase demand forlinguistic diversity on the Internet, adding a bottom-up driver to the top-down efforts made at the political level andin the context of the WSIS process. The number of initiatives to promote linguistic diversity is rapidly increasing, andthis process can be expected to show some tangible outcomes by 2015, with likely increases in the number of languagesthat can be used on the Internet, the availability of local content, and the number of language versions of themain software and applications used on the Internet.Nonetheless, the lack of available indicators to measure Target 9 makes it difficult to track progress on its achievement,at both the international and national levels. While there may be some anecdotal evidence and success stories,which may serve as good-practice ideas for other initiatives, there are not enough data to allow an objectiveassessment of where the target currently stands. The main global stakeholders need to work together, highlight theimportance of the issues at stake, guide countries in what policies they could implement, and potentially come upwith and implement a plan for concrete actions. Indeed, the objective of linguistic diversity in cyberspace warrantssupport on the global ICT and Internet-related policy agenda, not least to be able to exploit synergies among thevarious stakeholders.Collecting indicators in this field calls for a recommendation to the main global stakeholders. Following the Barcelonasymposium held in September 2009, 48 an urgent effort is required to set up an action plan which should include:• incentives to the scientific community for initiating research projects geared to creating indicators for measuringlanguages and content on the Internet;• direct actions coordinated by international organizations to support projects for the development of indicators;• mainstreaming linguistic diversity in all aspects of ICT and information society measurement efforts.International organizations can further contribute by making governments more aware of the importance of linguisticdiversity in cyberspace. This could include suggestions for programmes supporting the issues, and appropriateguidelines.Strategies also need to be designed to support the IDN implementation process and use it as a starting point forbuilding a more comprehensive perspective on the subject. In addition to the implementation of IDNs, many effortsare emerging in different countries and sectors. It would be important to take stock of these initiatives and improvecoordination between them.ICT4D donors should consider mainstreaming linguistic and cultural diversity in their project frameworks, as wasdone for gender issues. One possibility would be to consider giving higher funding priority to projects that specificallytake linguistic diversity and local content into account. Developing countries’ diasporas could also play a strategic rolein all ICT4D efforts, and should be involved in content production for local languages.187

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsTechnological innovation aimed at bringing communities not yet represented on the Internet online, and at improvingdigital literacy, including through the development of mobile web technologies, should be promoted.Finally, the role of translators should be valued in the context of linguistic diversity, as well as cybervolunteer networks49 that can help with the promotion of languages online. The Bamako International Forum on Multilingualism 50was established in January 2009. An action plan was drawn up containing a chapter entitled “For a multilingual cyberspace,”including a broad set of recommendations which could serve as valid inputs. 51 As a follow-up, and as a way topush the transformation of recommendations into an action plan, the main stakeholders should set up and committo a coordinated roadmap, including continuous monitoring of progress in linguistic diversity and local content incyberspace.188

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTsNotes1Substantial contributions to this chapter were made by Daniel Pimienta from FUNREDES, with inputs from Daniel Prado (Union Latine),Jean-François C. Morfin (Intlnet), Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), and Deirdre Williams (St Lucia). ITU is also very grateful for the ccTDL dataprovided by Matthew Zook from ZookNIC.2On the Internet, content is any information (webpages, messages, software...) that is available for retrieval by the user, in any format(e.g. text, image, audio, video).3The term Web 2.0 refers to what is perceived as a second-generation of the web, characterized by dynamic, shareable and user-generatedcontent, such as in social networks.4It is worth noting that the size of the “invisible web” — the part of the web containing dynamic pages which are not indexable (such asdata bases) — is estimated as being 500 times larger than the visible web [Bergman, 2001].5See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action, 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c8, §23.6The term “Internet of objects,” or “Internet of things,” alludes to the idea that many devices (such as household coffee machines orrefrigerators) will eventually be accessible via the Internet through innovative applications. Seehttp://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/The-Internet-of-Things-2005.pdf for more details.7Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is the next-generation Internet layer protocol for packet-switched networks and the Internet.8IPv4 addresses use 32 bit/s, while IPv6 uses 128 bit/s, allowing 2128 (about 3.4×1038) addresses.9See the eleven barriers to use of ICT for human development, presented in a spiral form in [Pimienta, 2009].10It is not straightforward to describe individual decisions to produce and browse or not in a particular language. Nonetheless, incentivescould be put in place to stimulate the production of local content, and/or content in local languages.11Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) refers to the application of ICTs for development in general andpoverty reduction in particular.12Local content production does not imply that the locally produced content is only consulted locally. As a matter of fact, empirical datalead to the observation that locally produced content in a globalized world tends to be consulted globally. The existence of diasporas andof people interested in research and study of local cultures from abroad are only two of the reasons to explain that phenomenon.13All references from FUNREDES/Union Latine can be consulted in the FUNREDES/Union Latine Observatory of Linguistic and Cultural Diversityat: http://funredes.org/lc.14The Language Observatory Project (http://www.language-observatory.org/) is a consortium of universities initiated and coordinated bythe University of Technology of Nagaoka, Japan. For more information, see http://gii2.nagaokaut.ac.jp/gii/.15“Localizing content” refers to the process of translation into the local language and adaptation of the content to the local culture. “Localizinglanguage” is meant in this chapter as the process of allowing a language to be usable in the digital environment, and it refers thenbasically to a technical process of codification of the corresponding character set.16A lingua franca is a language systematically used to communicate between persons not sharing a mother tongue.17While figures for speakers of a given language (especially a second language) vary considerably and up-to-date figures are hard to find,the low rate of change allows the use of less recent figures. In 1996, David Graddol, writing for the British Council, estimated ”speakersof English” to be 750 million (source “The Future of English” — http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf), which, comparedwith the 5.7 billon world population for 1996, gives a percentage of 10 per cent. Ethnologue, citing sources from 1999, gives a figureof a little more than 508 million English speakers (341 million first language) which, compared with the 6 billon of world population for1999, gives a percentage of less than 8.5 per cent. [Malherbe, 1999] offered the figure of 600 million, which set against the 1999 worldpopulation gives a percentage of a little more than 10 per cent. Union Latine (cited in [Pimienta, 2009]) gave a figure of 670 million in2008, which also means a proportion of just over 10 per cent. Other sources may give higher figures (for example [Prado, 2010] providesestimates of 824 million or 729 million for 2009 depending on the assumptions made), which is why it is necessary to leave a margin bystating less than 15 per cent. In a similar context, [Graddol, 2006], using data from the World Tourism Organization, states that threequartersof tourism situations involve non-English speakers in non-English-speaking countries.18Children who are not educated in their mother tongue have lower grades as well as a higher rate of failure to go on to the next level (seehttp://www.unesco.org/en/languages-in-education/).19Practical, or technical, computer language also does not exist in all languages. For example, words such as copy, paste, file, mouse, drive,operating system, network, burning a CD, download, broadband, Instant Messenger, etc. are often taken from English. This might constitutea barrier to people who do not speak English or do not feel at ease using English terminology.20Test Of English as a Foreign Language. See http://www.ets.org. This is an imperfect proxy, because TOEFL exams tend to be taken bythose who plan to live, work or study abroad. Therefore, it tends to be a relatively small proportion of individuals in a country who takeTOEFL exams. Furthermore, this proportion may vary widely across countries, and is likely to reflect other factors such as the resourcesallocated to English teaching. Nonetheless, in spite of these limitations, TOEFL test scores currently constitute the only widely availablemeasure of English proficiency where English is not the mother tongue.21[OECD, 2006] and [van Welsum and Xu, 2007] use TOEFL scores as a proxy for English language skills, and [Lee, 2009] uses TOEFL scoresto proxy the effect of English proficiency on economic growth.189

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets22In Asia and Africa, IDRC supports the localization of local languages through initiatives which gather many partners from various countries,in a collaborative manner. The Asian group is also strongly involved in the process of the development of IDNs. Both groups organizeregional meetings which contribute to the necessary awareness-raising among stakeholders.23However, broadband evolution and the combined management of audio and video may eventually open the door for some type of digitalprocessing for oral languages, while the Internet is becoming less and less text centred.24Digital literacy consists of equipping people with ICT concepts, methods and skills to enable them to use and exploit ICTs. The relatedconcept of information literacy consists of providing people with concepts and training in order to process data and transform them intoinformation, knowledge and decisions. It includes methods to search and evaluate information, elements of information culture and itsethical aspects, as well as methodological and ethical aspects for communication in the digital world.25Based on data from [Crystal, 2006], Ethnologue and UNESCO.26Some sources state than only one tenth of languages have a written form.27People with linguistic skills researching on the demographic elements of languages.28UNICODE (http://unicode.org), one of the pillars of the progress made in multilingualism, is a non-profit association formed as a consortiumwhich sets standards for encoding character sets and scripts.29See http://unicode.org/standard/supported.html and http://unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-num.html for more complete explanationsand for the set of supported scripts.30Balancing Act Africa, Issue No. 481, 20 November 2009 (http://www.balancingact-africa.com/).31Thanks to the “Wayback engine” of archive.org, it is possible to see a snapshot of one of the latest products:http://web.archive.org/web/20041019013615/www.global-reach.biz/globstats/index.php3.32http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm.33These figures refer to both first and second language English speakers.34The last figure for 2009, given by InternetWorldStats, is 27.6 per cent of English-speaking users on the Internet (sourcehttp://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm).35Limited to English, French, Portuguese and Spanish.36See http://funredes.org/lc for more details.37Top-level domains (TLDs) are divided into two classes. Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) include for example “.com” or “.org,” whilecountry code top-level domains (ccTLDs) are used and reserved for countries or dependent territories expressed as two letter countrycodes [OECD, 2009].38This is an imperfect proxy, as it does not take generic top-level domains (gTLDs) registered in each country into account, nor the fact thatthese registrations can be influenced by factors such as registration pricing policies. The relative shares of ccTLDs and gTLDs vary acrosscountries. Nonetheless, domain-name registrations are an indicator of interest in adopting a web presence and ultimately an indicator ofthe development of the Internet [OECD, 2009].39See http://funredes.org/lc and the observation of Latin languages, German and English.40The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF), a governmental organization bringing together 56 States, contributes to promotingdiversity. Its four main action lines include one for “digital technologies.” OIF was present during the WSIS process as an advocateof linguistic and cultural diversity in cyberspace. Supporting content creation in French and in the local languages of the Member Statesis an indirect part of the objective “to support and value digital expression of francophone communities.” This translates, for example,into a programme to fund initiatives in the field (Information Highway Francophone Fund). Progress in content development in Spanishand French, and the productivity of French content relative to other languages, suggests that policies to support the production of localcontent can have measurable effects.41See http://www.puntcat.cat/en_index.html.42http://idrc.ca.43http://www.panl10n.net/.44http://www.panafril10n.org/.45The MAAYA network brings together more than 25 partners with a dynamic of fostering collaboration in concrete projects. UNESCO,which is a member of the MAAYA network, is the UN body which promotes the theme of linguistic diversity, both in the real world(protecting endangered languages) and in the virtual world (for instance in a signed agreement with ICANN) and, as mentioned in theintroduction, coordinates with ITU for WSIS Action Line C8. See http://maaya.org.46See for instance the plenary session chaired in Rio de Janeiro by the Brazilian Minister of Culture inhttp://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-Diversity-13NOV07.txt.47See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8333194.stm.48International Symposium on Multilingualism and Cyberspace, see http://maaya.org/spip.php?article105.49In Latin America, the project “En mi Idioma” (in my language) enables the Misak community of Colombia to design a website for languageeducation. Enlace Quiche, in Guatemala, trains bilingual teachers and supports the production of educational packages in Maya190

Target Target 3: Connect 9: Encourage scientific the and development research centres of content with ICTslanguages. ICVolunteers.org coordinates a network of volunteers, involved in cybervolunteerism and translation (over 10 000 volunteersregistered). Its language and migration project assists migrants with their language needs and makes use of the web to do so.50http://www.acalan.org/fr/confeven/forum/forum.php.51See http://www.acalan.org/fr/confeven/forum/plan_action.pdf.ReferencesBergman, M.K. (2001), White Paper: The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value. in Ann Arbor, MI: Scholarly PublishingOffice, University of Michigan, University Library vol. 7, no. 1, August, 2001http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0007.104.ComScore (2008), “Social Networking Explodes Worldwide as Sites Increase their Focus on Cultural Relevance,”http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2008/08/Social_Networking_World_Wide.Crystal, D. (2006), “Language and the Internet,” Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 9/2006.Diki-Kidiri, M. (2007), “Comment assurer la présence d’une langue dans le cyberespace?,” Unesco CI.2007/WS/1.,2007, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001497/149786F.pdf.European Commission (2009), Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report, European Commission, Brussels.Facebook (2010a), Company Timeline page, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?timeline (accessed 2 March,2010).Facebook (2010b), Statistics page, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (accessed 2 March, 2010).Facebook (2010c), “Facebook’s February 2010 US Traffic by Age and Sex: All Groups Growing, Men More Quickly,”http://www.insidefacebook.com/ (accessed 2 March, 2010).Graddol, D. (2006), “English Next,” British Council,http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-english-next.pdf.Horrigan, J. (2010), “Broadband Adoption and Use in America,” Results of FCC Survey, OBI Working Paper Series No. 1.ITU (2010), “Measuring the Information Society 2010,” Geneva.Lee, C. G. (2009), “English language and economic growth: Cross-country empirical evidence,” paper prepared forthe Conference on Globalisation, Development and Growth in Asia,” held at the University of Nottingham,Malaysia Campus, January 14-15, 2009.Lewis, M. (2009), “Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition,” Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.http://www.ethnologue.com/.Malherbe, M. (1999), “Les langues de l’humanité,” Editor: R. Laffont, Paris.Nandasara, S.T., Kodama, S., Choong, C,Y., Caminero, R., Tarcan, A., Riza, H., Nagano, R.L. and Y. Mikami. (2008),“An Analysis of Asian Language Web Pages,”.in The International Journal on Advances in ICT for EmergingRegions (ICTer), Volume 1, No 1, 2008.OECD (2006), 2006 OECD Information Technology Outlook, OECD, Paris.OECD (2009), OECD Telecommunications Outlook 2009, OECD, Paris.Paolillo, J., D. Pimienta, D. Prado, Y. Mikami and X. Fantognanet (2005), “Measuring linguistic diversity on theInternet,” UNESCO, Paris,http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=20882&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.Pimienta, D. (2008), “Accessing Contents,” in: Global Information Society Watch, APC, Hivos and ITeM.http://www.giswatch.org/gisw2008/thematic/AccessingContent.html.191

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsPimienta, D. (2009), “Digital divide, social divide, paradigmatic divide,” in: International Journal of Information CommunicationTechnologies and Human Development, V1, N1, January-March 2009. Older version accessible at:http://funredes.org/mistica/english/cyberlibrary/thematic/Paradigmatic_Divide.pdf.Pimienta, D., Prado D. and A. Blanco (2010), “Twelve years of measuring linguistic diversity in the Internet: balanceand perspectives,” UNESCO, Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001870/187016e.pdf.Prado, D. (2010), “Présence des langues romanes dans la connaissance,” presentation made at “Présence, poids etvaleur des langues romanes dans la société de la connaissance,” OIF, Paris, 30 April 2010.Suzuki, I., Y. Mikami, A. Ohsato and Y. Chubachi (2002), “A Language and Character Set Determination MethodBased on N-gram Statistics,” in: ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, Vol.1, No.3,September 2002, pp.270-279.UNESCO (2005), Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, DocumentCLT-2005/CONVENTION DIVERSITE-CULT REV., Paris.van Welsum, D. and Xu T. (2007), “Is China the new centre for the offshoring of ICT-enabled services?,” DSTIInformation Economy Report, March 2007, OECD, Paris.192

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachTarget 10: Ensure that more than halfthe world’s inhabitants have access to ICTswithin their reachIntroductionThe extent to which citizens use ICTs is perhaps the most objective measure of a country’s success in creating an informationsociety. Therefore, the goal of ensuring that more than half of the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTswithin their reach is possibly the most relevant of the ten WSIS targets.Target 10 is related to all of the WSIS action lines, since giving people access to ICTs is one of the most fundamentalrequirements for creating an information society. Indeed, for some action lines, there is a very direct linkage:• Action Line C2 (Information and communication infrastructure: an essential foundation for the informationsociety) is a basic requirement for providing access to ICTs.• Action Line C3 (Access to information and knowledge) is arguably the most relevant to Target 10, since accessto ICTs is essential for allowing “...people, anywhere in the world, to access information and knowledge almostinstantaneously. The situation is very different in most developing countries that collect these data. Fixed householdbroadband penetration remains below five per cent in Costa Rica, Thailand and Ecuador. In Chile, about 15per cent of households have fixed broadband access, followed by Mexico with 9.6 per cent.” 1• Action Line C6 (Enabling environment) has a major bearing on Target 10, insofar as a suitable regulatory environmentcan encourage investment in the telecommunication sector and lead to more infrastructure availability.Universal service/access regulations can also assist in expanding access to more people. Laws and regulationsgoverning electronic transactions promote greater user trust in ICTs.Another important issue, however, is ensuring that once ICTs are within reach, they are actually used. Action Lines193

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsC4 (Capacity building), C5 (Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs) and C8 (Cultural diversity and identity,linguistic diversity and local content) seek to ensure that people have the necessary skills, confidence and incentivesto make use of ICTs.While Target 10 sets a clear and quantifiable goal, i.e. “more than half the world’s inhabitants” (indeed, it is the onlyWSIS target with a numerical objective), it is vague in terms of the technologies or services concerned (“ICTs”). Thischapter proposes the following four indicators to measure and track target 10 of WSIS:1. Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants2. Proportion of individuals who used a mobile cellular telephone in the last 12 months3. Proportion of individuals who used the Internet (from any location) in the last 12 months4. Proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access (narrowband, broadband)All four are among the core list of ICT indicators drawn up by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development andare being collected directly from countries by ITU. 2 They refer to mobile cellular and Internet technologies, and covernot only access but also, and importantly, use of these ICTs. By introducing two indicators that measure the actualusage of ICTs, the proposed indicators go beyond the sole notion of “access.” To reflect this aspect, the wording ofthe target could in fact be slightly amended to read: “Ensure that more than half the world’s inhabitants have accessto ICTs within their reach and make use of them.”Measuring Target 10 — Proposed indicatorsTarget 10, like most of the other WSIS targets, is vague. It calls for populations to have ICTs “within their reach.” Thisconcept is subjective and may be interpreted in different ways. One person’s “reach” differs from another’s. A fiveminutewalk to a public phone may be easy for a young adult, but arduous for a senior citizen or disabled person.The measurement basis can also vary: e.g. distance (to a communication service), or time (required to reach a communicationservice). In any case, most countries do not measure either time or distance from ICTs, so there is no wayto consistently track the goal in such terms.Chart 10.1 illustrates a number of alternative and popular indicators used to measure ICT uptake. It shows that ICTservices have grown steadily over the last decade. With the exception of fixed telephone lines, penetration rates forICT services, especially mobile cellular telephone subscriptions, have grown rapidly. Both fixed and mobile broadbandare relatively recent technologies, but are also growing steadily. These findings suggest that communicationservices are spreading rapidly and that more and more people are using ICTs.One ICT service that lends itself to a literal interpretation of “within their reach” is mobile cellular communications. Amobile subscription is usually personal, with the mobile handset carried by an individual. Few other ICTs can matchthis in terms of proximity. Moreover, despite some shortcomings, data on mobile cellular subscriptions are widelycollected, so the target can be measured for practically every country in the world.Measuring mobile uptakeA mobile subscription implies that a person not only has access to, but can also use, ICTs. This makes an indicatorlike the number of mobile cellular telephone subscriptions preferable to a coverage indicator, such as “percentageof the population covered by a mobile cellular signal” 3 , which does not provide access information (i.e. the “reach”in the target would just be airwaves). While the number of laptop computers might also reflect the target’s focus onproximity, many people do not have a laptop, either because they cannot afford one or choose not to have one. Furthermore,unlike a mobile phone, a laptop computer by itself does not have connectivity. Although there are caseswhere mobile subscriptions do not necessarily include a handset (e.g. when using a mobile broadband subscriptionconnected to a computer, or machine subscriptions such as ATMs), in the vast majority of cases they do. Finally, thereis considerable evidence that mobile is one service to which virtually all inhabitants over a certain age aspire. Therefore,one indicator proposed for monitoring Target 10 is: Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants(Partnership indicator A2).194

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachChart 10.1: Global ICT development, 1998-200980Per 100 inhabitants70605040302010067.0Fixed telephone linesMobile cellular telephone subscriptionsInternet usersFixed broadband subscriptionsMobile broadband subscriptions25.917.89.57.198 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09*Note: *Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Although up-to-date mobile subscription data are widely available for practically every country in the world, thereare methodological issues with this indicator. The main problem is that not every subscription maps onto one discreteindividual, with the result that subscription data can overstate the actual number of people that possess amobile phone. The main reasons for SIM-card duplications are:• Duplicate subscriptions: For a variety of reasons, the same user can have more than one subscription, for instanceto separate work from personal calls or to benefit from cheaper on-net tariffs in countries that have notintroduced number portability. India, for example, does not offer number portability, so mobile subscriberscannot keep the same phone number when switching operators. Instead, subscribers buy new SIM cards, atrend that has been accelerated by the recent introduction of phones with multiple SIM cards. 4 ITU data showthat, at the end of 2009, Belgium, for example, had a mobile cellular penetration of 112 per cent. According tothe country’s household survey, however, “only” 88 per cent of Belgians had used a mobile telephone over thelast 12 months. 5 For countries where data are available, ITU analysis shows similar differences between mobilecellular penetration rates and mobile user data (See Chart 10.4).• Inactive subscriptions: Not every subscription is active. This is a particular issue for prepaid subscriptions, whereoperators’ practices differ regarding the length of time a subscription has to remain unused for it to be consideredinactive. 6 While more and more operators and countries are trying to distinguish between active andnon-active subscriptions, inactive accounts remain a data challenge.• Machine subscriptions: A growing number of non-human devices such as automatic teller machines (ATMs) usemobile networks for processing transactions. 7Conversely, mobile penetration looks at individual ownership and thus understates the number of people who mayactually have access to mobile communications, particularly in developing countries. People without their own mobilephone can easily use somebody else’s, whether through a mobile public phone service or by borrowing a neighbour’sor family member’s mobile handset. This is especially relevant in developing countries, where mobile subscriptionpenetration can sometimes understate overall accessibility to mobile communications. In the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo , for example, subscription penetration was 10 per cent in 2007 whereas the number of households witha mobile stood at 21 per cent. 8195

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsBox 10.1: Examples of non-voice mobile phone applications for development in Africa• Ushahidi 11 (Swahili for “testimony”) was launched in Kenya in response to post-election violence. Citizens can send informationabout incidents by text message using their mobile phone. This is then displayed on the Ushahidi website forthe wider community. Ushahidi has been deployed for citizen monitoring of election violence in other countries.• The Pésinet 12 project in Mali uses mobile technology to reduce child illness. “Agents de Pesée” (ADPs) are trained andprovided with Java-enabled mobile phones to send information such as weight and symptoms about children in thecommunity. The data are transmitted over mobile phones using the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network to adatabase which alerts doctors to any significant symptoms. A doctor can then send an SMS to the ADPs, who advise thefamily to bring the child to the health clinic for examination.• Kenyan operator Safaricom developed the M-Pesa system to transfer “m-cash” over the mobile network without theneed for a bank account. 13 Users can use their M-Pesa account to withdraw cash, buy airtime or send money to others.Safaricom reported 6.18 million registered M-Pesa users as of March 2009.• In Senegal, Manobi 14 provides access to price data on various crops, collected from different markets across the country.Manobi personnel use mobile phones to send the price data to the Manobi database using the Wireless ApplicationProtocol (WAP). Farmers use their mobile phones to query the database.• Namibia became one of the first countries in Africa to offer digital television over mobile handsets. The DStv mobileservice is a partnership between the local mobile operator MTC and the pan-African satellite provider Multichoice, andwas launched in 2008. 15Note: Most of these examples were adapted from Beardon, Hannah (2009).One way to overcome the limitations of mobile subscriptions as an indicator is to use a survey-based measure. ThePartnership has defined such an indicator:Proportion of individuals who used a mobile cellular telephone in the last 12 months(Partnership indicator HH10).The definition of this indicator specifies that the mobile phone does not need to be owned or paid by the personwho used it, and may be “available through work, a friend or family member. It may be owned collectively by severalindividuals or the use could be purchased from a public telephone call service.” 9Information on mobile phone usage can be collected through national household surveys. Although an increasingnumber of countries are including questions on mobile phones in their ongoing surveys, data are still very limited,particularly in developing nations. For this reason, it is necessary to continue monitoring subscription data in order tohave the widest coverage, while bearing in mind the limitations.Today, mobile technology provides more than simple voice communications, and can therefore incorporate otherunspecified ICTs called for in the target (e.g. Internet access, broadcasting). For example, around a fifth of UnitedKingdom mobile subscribers use their mobile phone to access news and information over the Internet or listen to music.10 Box 10.1 lists several examples from Africa illustrating some non-voice mobile applications being used primarilyfor beneficial socio-economic purposes in that region.Measuring Internet uptakeMobile technology alone is insufficient to depict the full gamut of ICT possibilities. Although mobiles can be usedfor everything from voice to text messaging and from Internet access to watching television, there mere existenceof a mobile subscription does not indicate what it is being used for. Given that a mobile handset implies voice communicationsas a minimum, that broadcasting is covered by Target 8 and that a computer by itself does not providethe full benefit of connectivity, then it is also relevant to focus attention on Internet access, which is arguably the196

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachmost important of all ICTs in terms of functionality and its potential development impact. Therefore, a third indicatorproposed for measuring Target 10 is:Proportion of individuals who used the Internet (from any location) in the last 12 months(Partnership indicator HH7).There are limitations with current Internet user data and, as is the case for mobile cellular use, the only reliablemethod for obtaining this information is through a national household survey. Many economies, including most developingcountries, do not conduct regular (annual) and/or representative surveys on Internet use. Instead, data areoften estimated based on Internet subscription data. These methods can be very unreliable, since there is no commonyardstick for determining the multipliers, which can vary widely between countries.Another important advantage of survey data is that they allow the target to be monitored at a disaggregated level.For example, it would be useful not only to monitor aggregate access to mobile phones and the Internet but also tounderstand how that access is distributed among different groups such as those living in rural areas, women comparedto men, people in different age groups and of varying educational levels, etc. For this reason, countries arestrongly encouraged to carry out regular and representative surveys to measure access to and use of ICTs by householdsand individuals.It is widely recognized that broadband access to ICTs is crucial for delivering innovative applications and services,including in the area of ICT for development (ICT4D). At the same time, a number of studies have highlighted thespillover effects of broadband infrastructure and the impact it has on innovation and economic growth and on othersectors, including education and health. 16 Since the benefit of Internet access is so clearly amplified with a broadbandsubscription, it is important to add an indicator to measure the spread of broadband. However, measuring thispresents some challenges in terms of methodology and data availability. Broadband is available via both fixed (e.g.ADSL, cable modem, fibre optic) and wireless (e.g. fixed wireless broadband such as WiMAX, 3G mobile) networks. Althoughin theory the type of high-speed access should not be an issue as long as it is in line with the minimum definedspeed for broadband, there are limitations with 3G subscription data. In some countries, the number of 3G-enabledhandsets is reported rather than the actual number of subscribers actively using 3G broadband services. Also, thereare important differences in terms of speed and quality (for example, a fibre-to-the-home connection provides adifferent online experience from a mobile broadband connection), and a breakdown by technology is needed. Thesuggested indicator to track broadband uptake is therefore:Proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access (Partnership indicator HH11).The indicator distinguishes between narrowband, fixed broadband and mobile broadband, and should be collectedthrough a survey.The indicator meets the target’s condition that the ICT be “within reach,” since “at home” is arguably the closest,and the most convenient and accessible location possible. At the same time, “at home” is not the only (and, indeveloping countries, often not the predominant) location where people access the Internet. Broadband couldalso be available at work, at school, at a public location, at someone else’s home, etc. While it makes some senseto assume that a 50 per cent penetration of households with broadband access corresponds to about 50 per centof a country’s inhabitants with high-speed access, the figure would therefore most likely underestimate the realextent of broadband.Status of Target 10Mobile uptakeIf one were to consider only the number of mobile cellular subscriptions and assume it to be equal to the number of actualmobile phone users, then the target of ensuring that half the world’s inhabitants have access to ICTs would be met. By theend of 2009, there were two mobile subscriptions for every three people around the globe (Chart 10.2). Mobile cellularsubscriptions around the world (some 4.6 billion) account for over three quarters of all telephone subscriptions. Developingcountries surpassed the 50 per cent penetration mark in 2008, and by 2009 over 70 economies had surpassed the magi-197

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetscal 100 per cent penetration mark, including a number of developing nations. Given this trend, it seems that eventuallymost countries will attain a penetration of 100 per cent.Chart 10.2: Global mobile cellular subscriptions, 2000-2009Subscriptions (Millions)5000450040003500300025002000150010005000Subscriptions (Millions)Per 100 inhabitants02000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 2009*Note: * Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Chart 10.3: Global mobile cellular penetration, by region, 2009*%14012010080604020031.5AfricaMobile penetration46.4Asia andthe Pacific57.6ArabStates81.0106.6Note: * Estimate.Source: ITU estimates based on World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.8070605040302010118.6Per 100 inhabitantsAmericas CIS EuropeIn 2003, at the time of the first phase ofWSIS, the number of mobile cellular subscriptionsaround the world was only aroundone for every five persons, and few anticipatedthe rapid take-up of mobile services. Mobilecommunications is an example of wheremany countries have “done the right thing,”which explains its success. It is difficult to singleout any one country insofar as, over time,most countries have come to adopt the necessarypolicies for sustaining mobile growth.However, identifiable success factors includea high degree of competition in the nationalmobile market, the adoption of a commontechnology, and the introduction of prepaidservices (Box 10.2).Two regions (Europe and the Commonwealthof Independent States) already havea mobile subscription penetration in excessof 100 per cent and in two more (Americasand Arab States), the number of mobile subscriptionswas equivalent to, or above half oftheir inhabitants by 2009 (Chart 10.3). Onlythe Asia and the Pacific and Africa regionshave yet to reach this figure. Based on theregional compound annual growth rates(CAGR) for the last three years, all regionsexcept for Africa will have surpassed a mobilepenetration of 100 per cent by the endof 2015. Based on the 2006-2008 CAGR, Africa’smobile cellular subscription penetrationwould reach 80 per cent by 2015.Since, as we have seen, the mobile subscriptionnumbers do not correspond tothe actual number of mobile users, a muchbetter measure of mobile cellular uptakeis the proportion of individuals who useda mobile cellular telephone. Currently,however, data are only available for alimited number of countries. A regionalaverage can only be produced for Europe,where, by the end of 2008, 91 per cent ofthe population had used a mobile phone.In the Arab States, data are only availablefor Bahrain and Egypt, where 99 and 24per cent of the population used a mobilephone, respectively. In all of the economiesfrom Asia and the Pacific where datawere available, more than half of the inhabitantshad used a mobile phone. In theAmericas, only Chile had more than 50 percent mobile users, followed by Panama198

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachBox 10.2: Mobile success factorsOver the last decade, no other ICT has grown as fast as mobile and connected previously unconnected areas in such a short spaceof time. There are a number of factors that have made the mobile boom possible:• Competition: The introduction of second-generation technology opened up greater opportunities for new market entrantsdue to increased capacity and better spectrum efficiency. Most countries introduced competition with the launch of GSMnetworks. For many countries, this was their first taste of competition in the telecommunication sector. Competition haslowered prices, increased services and expanded coverage, creating the right conditions for mobile communications to grow.As of 2009, 90 per cent of countries allowed competition in their cellular mobile market (Chart 1 Box 10.2).Chart 1 Box 10.2: Percentage of countries with competitionin the mobile market, 2009Fullcompetition61%Monopoly10%Partialcompetition29%Source: ITU World Telecommunication Regulatory database.Chart 2 Box 10.2: Distribution of mobile subscriptionsby technology, June 2009WCDMA/HSPA9% CDMA10%Other1%• Common technology: Europe established a common regionalstandard for second-generation digital mobile technologyover a quarter century ago. This led to a de facto globalstandard for 2G mobile technology. Work on the Groupe SpécialMobile (GSM) technology was launched by the EuropeanConference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrationsin 1982. EU governments worked closely to harmonizespectrum requirements and coordinate other technical issuesfor the successful adoption of GSM. The first GSM networkwas launched in Finland in 1991, and Australia became thefirst non-European country to join the GSM Association twoyears later. Today, nearly 800 operators in over 200 countriesoperate GSM networks. 17 GSM accounted for four out ofevery five mobile subscriptions around the world in June 2009(Chart 2 Box 10.2).• Prepaid: The introduction of prepaid billing in 1996brought mobile to the masses. There are millions of peoplearound the world who would not qualify for a postpaid mobileplan, let alone be able to afford the required monthly payments.The majority of subscriptions in developing countriesare prepaid, and in some regions such as Africa almost all mobilesubscribers are prepaid. For example, the Kuwaiti mobilegroup Zain operates in 15 African countries where over 99 percent of its subscriptions were prepaid in 2008.GSM80%• Applications: The growing number of applications availablewith mobile networks has increased demand and usage.Roaming, text messaging and mobile broadband have becomedesirable applications for a growing number of people.Note: CDMA includes cdmaOne, CDMA2000 1X, CDMA20001xEV-DO and CDMA200xEV-DO Rev. A. Other includes TD-SCDMA, TDMA, PDC, iDEN and analogue.Source: Adapted from GSM Association.• Equipment: Mobile equipment, both on the network infrastructureside as well as devices, has grown in sophisticationwhile continuing to drop in price. The emergence of Chineseequipment vendors such as Huawei and ZTE has driven competitionin the infrastructure segment, dramatically reducingthe cost of installing a mobile network. Innovations in handsettechnology include the development of sophisticated smartphones such as the Blackberry and iPhone, which are driving demandfor mobile data services, together with falling prices for low-end models, making them more affordable for more usersaround the world.199

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 10.4: Mobile cellular users versus mobile cellular subscriptions in Europe and countries where data areavailable, 2008%Proportion of individuals who used a mobile cellular telephone in the last 12 monthsMobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants150100500BahrainIcelandNorwayEU-27CroatiaKorea (Rep.)New Zealand**TFYR MacedoniaSerbia*JapanAzerbaijanTurkey*Hong Kong, ChinaThailandChile**Panama**EcuadorNicaragua**HondurasEgyptCuba**Note: *Data refer to 2007. ** Data refer to 2006. Countries’ data refer to different target populations: ranges vary from 3 years old andover in Korea, to 16 to 74 years old in Europe.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.(44 per cent), Ecuador (37 per cent), Nicaragua (35 per cent), Honduras (30 per cent) and Cuba (1 per cent). No Africancountry has produced official data on the proportion of mobile users.While, for the countries for which data are available, the number of mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitantsalways exceeds the number of mobile users, the differences in the ratio between the two indicators vary considerably,and it is not possible to derive an estimate of the number of mobile users from subscription data. For example,in a number of countries, including the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Azerbaijan, the percentage of users and subscriptionsare relatively similar (70 per cent versus 75 per cent in Azerbaijan, for example). In other countries, includingHong Kong (China) and Honduras, the mobile cellular penetration is about three times the level of the mobile userpenetration (Chart 10.4).Because not many countries collect data on the number of mobile users, it is not possible to make a global or regionalestimate (except for Europe). There are sufficient data for developed countries to indicate that most of them haveachieved the 50 per cent threshold specified in the target. Existing data for about a dozen developing countries showthat, in a number of them, including in Azerbaijan, Thailand and Chile, more than half the population is using a mobilephone. In Bahrain, which has one of the highest mobile cellular penetration levels in the world (187 per cent in2008), 99 per cent of inhabitants use a mobile phone. In Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras, penetration rates at theend of 2008 stood between 30 and 40 per cent, suggesting that these countries are likely to reach the 50 per centmark by 2015.200

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachChart 10.5: Global number of Internet users, 2000-2009*1 80030Internet users (Millions)1 6001 4001 2001 000800600400200UsersPer 100 inhabitants252015105Internet users per 100 inhabitants002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*Note: *Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Internet uptakeSince the target of ensuring that more than half of the world’s inhabitants have access to the Internet goes to thevery essence of the information society, a country cannot be said to have an information society if the majority ofits citizens are not online. Currently, access to the Internet is far less widespread than mobile communications. Atthe end of 2009, ITU estimated that some 1.7 billion people around the world were using the Internet, i.e. just overa quarter of the world’s population (26 per cent, see Chart 10.5). In the developing world, less than 20 per cent(17.8 per cent) were online. By the end of 2009, only Europe had achieved the target, with average Internet penetrationat 63 per cent (Chart 10.6). The Americas, at 49 per cent Internet penetration, had almost reached the target.There are a number of factors that make the Internet an ICT which is more difficult to disseminate. In a number ofcountries, the Internet market, and particularly the backbone infrastructure and international gateway, remain underthe monopoly of the incumbent telecommunication operator. Limited competition and scarce international Internetbandwidth tend to keep prices for Internet access high and often unaffordable in the area of fixed broadband access.The relatively high price of a computer, which remains the most popular access device for Internet users, makes itimpossible for many people to have Internet access at home, and public access is the only way to go online. Using theInternet also requires a certain level of education (much more so than using a mobile phone), and the lack of relevantcontent in local languages is a major barrier to higher Internet user levels (see Chapter 9). To overcome these barriers,it is particularly important for governments to take a proactive role, for example by making the Internet moreaffordable, and by allowing as many people as possible to have home Internet access while at the same time ensuringpublic access in rural areas and for people with low income levels (Box 10.3).In ensuring that half the population has access to ICTs, it is also important to look at the gender dimension and toensure that women, who represent about half of the world’s population, have equal access. ITU’s Internet userdata broken down by gender show that in the majority of countries still more men than women use the Internet(Chart 10.7).201

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 10.6: Internet user penetration by region, 2009*%7060Internet users per 100 inhabitants, 200962.75048.740302019.1 19.625.7107.50AfricaAsia andthe PacificArab States CIS Americas EuropeNote: *Estimate.Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Chart 10.7: Internet users by gender100 %90Male Internet users as a % of male population80Female Internet users as a % of female population706050403020100Korea (Rep.)JapanCanadaHong Kong, ChinaNew ZealandEU 27Macao, ChinaChileBrazilCosta RicaEcuadorMexicoMauritiusAzerbaijanOmanThailandParaguayUkraineEl SalvadorEgyptNicaraguaHondurasNote: Latest year available.Source: ITU based on Eurostat and national sources.202

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsChart 10.8: Proportion of households with Internet access, by region, 2008%6058.1504039.2302020.816.814.3100Europe The Americas CIS Asia and the Pacific Arab States Africa2.5Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.Chart 10.9: Proportion of households with Internet access by level of development, 200860%5040DevelopedWorldDeveloping30201002002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.204

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachEven though, by the end of 2008, one out of four households in the world had access to the Internet on average,only one out of eight households in the developing countries were connected, compared to three out of five in thedeveloped countries (Chart 10.9).Fewer data are available on the proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access. They showthat a number of high-income economies, including the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Denmark,Iceland, Hong Kong (China) and Canada have surpassed the 50 per cent penetration mark for fixed broadbandaccess. In the Republic of Korea and Iceland, around 80 per cent of households were connected to the Internetthrough high-speed Internet access. All of the EU-27 countries collect data that distinguish between a fixed broadbandand a narrowband connection, and the regional average was 49 and 17 per cent, respectively, by end 2008(Chart 10.10), with the former gradually replacing the latter. 23The situation is very different in most developing countries that collect these data. Fixed household broadband penetrationremains below five per cent in Costa Rica, Thailand and Ecuador. In Chile, about 15 per cent of householdshave fixed broadband access, followed by Mexico with 9.6 per cent.Only few countries currently collect data on mobile broadband access at home, although this is likely to change in thenear future, with more and more people using 3G mobile networks to connect to the Internet. In the Republic of Korea(a global leader in mobile broadband and one of the few countries to measure uptake), 93 per cent of householdsalready have mobile broadband access. In other countries where data are available, including in Chile, Mauritius andThailand, levels were still very low in 2008. At the same time, mobile broadband technology is expected to play a crucialrole for countries in bringing more people online and achieving Target 10. The indicator proposed here measuresboth fixed and mobile Internet access in households. With the rapid uptake of mobile Internet, it is expected that thevalues of the indicator will increase rapidly in the near future.Chart 10.10: Proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access, 2008100 %90Narrowband80706050Fixed broadbandMobile broadband403020100IcelandKorea (Rep.)NorwayHong Kong, ChinaCanada*JapanUnited Arab EmiratesEU 27New ZealandCroatiaTFYR MacedoniaTurkeyChileMauritiusMexicoSerbia*EgyptCosta RicaThailandEcuadorBhutanAzerbaijanNote: *Data refer to 2007. **Data refer to 2006. Whenever there are no data for the indicators “narrowband” and “mobile broadband”,this may be either because the technology is not used (=> the penetration is effectively “zero”), or because the country does notcollect these data (=> the value is unknown).Source: ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database.205

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsConclusion and recommendationsTarget 10 is vague in terms of defining which ICTs are to be monitored and the exact meaning of “within their reach.”In this chapter, the target has been interpreted as to the “reachability” aspect and specifically which ICTs to measure.This is essential for monitoring the target in a concrete, clear and objective manner. The specific goal — more than50 per cent of the world’s inhabitants — has not been altered.The choice of the four indicators to measure Target 10 was based on the availability of data and on their usefulnessin tracking and measuring the target in a meaningful way:Mobile cellular penetration (mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants) is the indicator that bestmatches the “availability within reach” aspect of the target. On the basis of this indicator, the target has beenachieved since, by the end of 2009, worldwide mobile cellular penetration stood at 67 per cent. However, given thatthe number of mobile cellular subscriptions does not necessarily correspond to the number of subscribers, or indeedthe number of users of mobile phones, this indicator does not measure how many people are actually making use ofa mobile phone.An indicator that provides a more accurate measure of the number of mobile users is the proportion of individualswho used a mobile cellular telephone during the past 12 months. As more and more countries collect this indicatorthrough household surveys, it should replace mobile cellular penetration as the primary measure. Currently, too fewcountries collect data on actual usage to establish whether more than 50 per cent of the world’s inhabitants use amobile phone. Existing data, which are limited mainly to developed economies and only about a dozen developingeconomies, show that the Target 10 has been met in the developed world. Several developing countries haveachieved the target, and others are steadily approaching it. If countries manage to sustain current growth in anddemand for mobile telephony, the target could be met by 2015.Since the information society is closely linked to Internet and the virtually unlimited amount of information it provides,the proportion of individuals who used the Internet (from any location) in the last 12 months was introduced tomeasure Internet uptake. There are problems with Internet user data, Europe being the only region where virtuallyall members carry out surveys to collect this information. In the absence of survey data, the number of Internet usersmay be estimated based on proxy indicators (usually the number of Internet subscribers). Data show that Target 10has yet to be achieved in respect of Internet use since, by the end of 2009, only 1.7 billion people, or 26 per cent ofthe world’s population, were online. While the developed countries have achieved the target, less than 20 per centof people in the developing world were online by the end of 2009.The indicator measuring the proportion of households with access to the Internet by type of access was introducedin order to measure the uptake of broadband Internet access, which is essential for people to benefit fully from theopportunities the Internet offers. Moreover, home access to the Internet satisfies the target’s requirement that accessbe ‘within reach’. Currently, only about a dozen developing economies collect data on the number of householdswith fixed broadband access, and even fewer collect data to track mobile broadband access at home. By the end of2008, fixed broadband penetration in the EU-27 countries had reached 49 per cent, suggesting that many developedcountries have only recently attained the target. Available data for some of the developing countries show that theyare still a long way from following suit. However, current developments in the mobile sector and the increasingnumber of mobile cellular subscriptions are expected to have a major impact on broadband access. While the progressionof mobile broadband is not yet reflected in the country data currently available, it is likely to have a crucialrole in making the target achievable.Recommendations to achieve Target 10A number of recommendations may be put forward with a view to achieving Target 10. While most of them arespecific to the four indicators identified to track the target, they also highlight the importance of the other WSIStargets and the link between the various WSIS action lines. To create a global information society and to ensure thatmore than half the world’s inhabitants not only have access to ICTs, but also actually use them, will call for actions onvarious fronts. This includes building the necessary infrastructure and providing public access, expanding skills andcreating relevant and local content.206

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachMobile telephony has made impressive gains and is one of the fastest-growing consumer technologies ever introduced.To sustain that growth and reach the goal of all adults using a mobile phone around the world, the followingpolicies need to be pursued:• Expanding mobile network coverage in developing countries, particularly in rural areas (a recommendationwhich is also related to Target 1 — Connect villages with ICTs). Coverage can be expanded through regulatorytools, such as including coverage requirements in licence conditions, or through universal service funding todeploy networks in underserved areas. Countries that have not yet done so should also launch 3G networks andexploit the potential that mobile broadband networks offer, including high-speed access to the Internet.• Lowering barriers to entry and usage through policies to increase competition and lower costs. Competition canbe intensified by allowing more market entrants. About 30 per cent of countries today only have a duopoly orpartial competition in their mobile market, and 10 per cent still lack any competition whatsoever (Chart 1 Box10.2). Competition can also be intensified through a number of regulatory tools, such as requiring wholesaleservice provision to retailers such as mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs); allowing users to keep theirown number when changing mobile networks (mobile number portability); and correcting monopoly marketpower over mobile call termination by establishing cost-based caps on wholesale prices. 24 High taxes in theform of import duties on handsets or special excise taxes on airtime have been documented as discouragingmobile take-up and usage. 25Like the printing press, electricity or the automobile, the Internet is a technology that has far-reaching impacts onsociety. The Internet, and especially broadband Internet, is increasingly accepted as a general-purpose technologythat dramatically affects the way people communicate, do business, interact with governments, educate themselvesand obtain information. 26 Unfortunately, these benefits have yet to spread to the majority of humankind. If the targetof ensuring that half of the world’s inhabitants have access to and use the Internet is to be achieved by 2015, governmentswill need to accelerate Internet and broadband take-up and pursue policies that will have a dramatic impacton usage. This includes ensuring that women, who represent about half of the world’s population, have equal access.Policy actions include:• Increasing competition to lower the cost of access. Although many countries claim to have competition in theirretail Internet access market, the real bottleneck is in wholesale provision, particularly access to internationalconnectivity, where competition is less prevalent. The cost of international bandwidth is one of the main underlyingcauses of high Internet (especially broadband Internet) prices in developing countries and needs to bereduced through greater competition in wholesale markets. When there is significant market power over keyfacilities such as submarine fibre-optic landing stations, appropriate regulatory remedies need to be adopted.Developing countries also need to seize the potential of wireless broadband for stimulating competition in theInternet access market. This is highly relevant considering that fixed broadband options are extremely limitedin many developing nations. Countries that have not yet allocated the requisite spectrum for wireless shoulddo so. Furthermore, countries need to consider using this opportunity to enhance broadband competition bylicensing new players, setting aside some of the wireless broadband spectrum for new players or applying otherincentives to attract new market entrants.• Expanding public access. The cost of computers and Internet access is a major barrier to household take-upin developing countries. Governments need to adopt the appropriate policies and provide the necessary resourcesto encourage the establishment of sufficient public access points for Internet access, particularly inrural areas. This policy emphasis should be considered as a priority, given that it is linked to a number of otherWSIS targets: Target 1 (Establish community access points), Target 2 (Connect schools with ICTs) and Target 4(Connect public libraries, archives, museums, cultural centres and post offices with ICTs).• Providing citizens with the appropriate ICT skills. In order to be used effectively, ICTs, particularly the Internet,require a basic level of ICT literacy. Many people around the world cannot use the Internet because they areilliterate. This is tied to education, where opportunities for learning must be made universal if ICT use is also toexpand. ICTs must also be provided in schools and ICT skills development must form part of the curriculum. Inaddition, there are various segments of the population beyond school age who require training in ICTs. This isrelated to Target 7, which calls for adapting school curricula to meet the challenges of the information society.207

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targets• Developing locally relevant content. Greater availability of local content, in local languages, will drive more peopleto use the Internet. Governments can help by developing appropriate online services that will attract usersto utilize the Internet, and by encouraging local content development through partnerships with the privatesector, development agencies, non-governmental organizations, the academic and research sector and otherpartners. This will also help in achieving Target 9, which calls for more local content and language diversity onthe Internet.208

Target Target 10: 8: Ensure that more all of than the world’s half the population world’s inhabitants have access have to access television to ICTs and within radio their services reachNotes1See WSIS Geneva Plan of Action , 2003, at: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/poa.html#c3.2The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development is a multistakeholder partnership launched in 2004. To achieve its main objective —namely, to increase the availability and quality of internationally comparable ICT data — it has developed a core list of ICT indicators.For more information on the Partnership and its core list of indicators, see: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/partnership/index.html and theintroduction to this report.3For more information on this indicator, see Chapter 1 of this report.4Leahy, Joe (2010). India’s mobile sector gets a reality check, Financial Times, 2 March, 2010.5The issue of duplicate subscriptions (multiple SIM cards) is confirmed by a 2007 study carried out by the operator Mobistar. The studyfound that in 2007 duplicate subscriptions in Belgium accounted for 14% of mobile penetration (84% instead of 98%). See: Mobistar.Analyst Presentation: Full year results 2007. 5 February 2008.6The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development recommends three months. See [Partnership, (2010)].7Berg Insight estimates that the number of cellular network connections worldwide used for machine-to-machine communication willgrow from 47.7 million connections in 2008 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25.6% to 187.1 million connections in 2014. Inthe coming years millions of motor vehicles, utility meters, POS-terminals, security alarms and other machines will become networked.See: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/99ba52/the_global_wireles.8Ministère du Plan et Macro International. 2008. Enquête Démographique et de Santé, République Démocratique du Congo 2007. Calverton,Maryland, U.S.A.: Ministère du Plan et Macro International.9See [Partnership (2010)], page 25.10See: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/3/UK_iPhone_Users.11See: htt://pwww.ushahidi.com.12See: http://www.pesinet.org/wp/.13See: http://www.safaricom.co.ke/index.php?id=745.14See: http://www.manobi.sn/sites/sn/.15See: http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2508:namibia-takes-the-lead-in-mobiletelevision&catid=190:mobile-and-wireless-technology#prcontacts.16See for example the United States Federal Communications Commission’s website on broadband, at http://www.fcc.gov/broadband/ and[OECD (2009b)].17See: http://www.gsmworld.com/membership/our_members.htm.18See: http://www.bladi.net/democratisation-d-internet-les-cybercafes-resisteront-ils.html.19See: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/improving-public-internet-access-in-vietnam-090420.aspx.20See Human Development Report 2009, at: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_VNM.html.21See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6169057.stm.22See: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS132289+28-May-2009+BW20090528.23For a list of the 27 countries included in the EU-27 group, see: http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm .24For example, the European Commission finds that: “Higher mobile termination rates make it harder for fixed and small mobile operatorsto compete with large mobile operators. These divergences, and differing regulatory approaches, undermine the Single Market andEurope’s competitiveness.” http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/710&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=nl.25GSMA, Global Mobile Tax Review 2006-2007. http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/regulatory-affairs/policy-recommendations-for-developing-countries/global_mobile_tax_review.htm.26See for example page 16 of the Executive Summary of [OECD(2009a)].209

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsReferencesBeardon, H. (2009), Mobiles for Development: How Mobile Technologies Can Enhance Plan and Partners Work inAfrica. Plan International.Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development (2010), Core ICT Indicators. Geneva, 2010.OECD (2009a), OECD Telecommunications Outlook 2009. OECD, Paris.OECD (2009b), Network Developments in Support of Innovation and User Needs, Working Party on CommunicationInfrastructures and Services Policies. OECD, Paris.210

Conclusions and the way forwardConclusions and the way forwardThis World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report (WTDR) reflects the first effort to carry out a comprehensiveglobal review of the international targets and goals agreed at the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS) in Geneva and Tunis, based on a set of measurable indicators. Only five years away from the target date of2015, this mid-term review will help policy-makers assess what has been achieved since the conclusion of WSIS in2005. It also provides concrete suggestions on how to monitor progress, and on the policies that could be implementedto achieve the targets.Overall, the analysis showed that considerable advances have been made in terms of global dissemination of ICTsince WSIS. In particular, mobile telephony has spread worldwide, making it likely that by 2015 half the world populationwill be using mobile phones. Similarly, access to basic radio and TV services is widely available. The numberof Internet users has also been growing continuously, Internet user penetration having doubled between 2003 and2009 (from around 12 per cent in 2003 to around 25 per cent by the end of 2009).Good progress has also been made in bringing Internet access to central governments and scientific and researchinstitutions, and to some extent also to schools, hospitals, museums, libraries and archives, at least in the major cities.There are a large number of national initiatives to provide Internet access to museums and archives, in particular,including in the developing world. Given their relatively limited number worldwide (in relation to, for example,households or schools), and as the majority of them are located in the developed world, connecting all museums andarchives by 2015 could be achieved with the right policy focus.Nevertheless, by the end of 2009, 75 per cent of the world population (and more than 80 per cent of people in developingcountries) were not yet using the Internet, and even fewer via a broadband connection. Yet broadband Internetis increasingly considered as a general-purpose technology, on a par with electricity, and even as a basic humanright. With five more years to go before the 2015 target year, all stakeholders need to step up a gear in their effortsto bring high-speed Internet to a large number of people and institutions, especially in the developing world, and inparticular to rural communities, schools, hospitals and local governments.Furthermore, in order to harness the full potential of ICTs, and for countries to become knowledge-based societies,there is a need to move from simply ensuring the provision of infrastructure and ICT access to encouraging the effectiveuse of ICTs. Increasing people’s and organizations’ use of ICTs and developing applications in such areas ase-health, e-learning, e-culture and e-government are thus essential, and have been included in the assessment ofthe targets. Finally, much needs to be done to make the Internet truly multilingual in order to create an inclusiveinformation society.In view of these findings, and to ensure that the WSIS targets and goals will be achieved by 2015, a concerted policyeffort is required on the part of all national, regional and international stakeholders. This is especially important giventhe significant impact that ICT use has on other areas of social and economic development and, hence, the major roleICT development can play in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), also set for 2015.211

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsEach of the chapters of this report provides a set of specific policy recommendations for the respective target. Manyof the policy areas outlined in the report, and which require urgent attention, were also addressed in detail in theWSIS outcome documents. Therefore, full implementation of the WSIS action lines will help to achieve the WSIS targetsby 2015. Five years is a relatively short period for putting in place new policies and programmes and achievingwidespread impact. However, ICTs are in high demand and, if made accessible, affordable and meaningful, are likelyto be taken up and used quickly by citizens and institutions.Given the importance of high-speed Internet access for full participation in the information society, universal accessto broadband should be a key policy focus in all countries without exception in the years to come. At the internationallevel, assistance should be provided to support developing countries in the establishment and implementation ofnational broadband plans. ITU’s “Build on Broadband” initiative highlights the power of broadband as a tool for drivingsocial and economic development, and urges governments to take the lead in forging partnerships with industryin order to develop national broadband networks and ensure affordable, equitable access for all citizens. 1 The newlycreated high-level Broadband Commission for Digital Development, led by ITU and UNESCO and supported by theUN Secretary-General, aims to promote the huge potential of high-speed communication networks for transformingeconomies and accelerating achievement of the MDGs. In time for the 2010 MDG Review Summit, the BroadbandCommission will focus attention on fast-tracking the formulation and implementation of national ICT policies in linewith the MDGs, and propose a set of actions and initiatives to implement universal broadband access based on asector-wide approach.Monitoring progress: towards 2015A key objective of the report was to review the WSIS targets, revise them where necessary for measurement purposes,and identify a set of measurable indicators that could be used by national, regional and international stakeholdersto monitor progress until 2015 — and beyond.Not all the targets specify a quantitative goal such as “more than half” of the population should have ICTs within theirreach (Target 10), or “all” of the population should have access to TV and radio (Target 8). Much emphasis was placedon “connecting” villages, schools, museums, hospitals etc. with ICTs, without however specifying the type of connectivityor ICT, nor a fortiori the use that should be made of the technology. Therefore, each target was interpreted inthe context of today’s ICT developments, and rephrased where necessary for the purpose of measurement and toidentify the relevant indicators.Some areas, although vital to the development of the information society, are not covered anywhere in the targets.The most critical example is the use of ICTs by businesses, which is essential for participating in today’s knowledgebasedeconomy and being competitive. This area is reflected in Action Line C7, under “e-business,” which calls upongovernments to promote the use of e-business, especially in developing countries. It is therefore proposed that anew target be added: “Connect all businesses with ICTs.” Indicators to monitor this proposed new target have beendefined by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development and are collected at the international level by theUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). 2Other areas not addressed by the targets are e-agriculture and e-environment, which are also included in Action LineC7; building confidence and security (Action Line C5); and the ethical dimensions of the information society (ActionLine C10). Progress in these areas should also be monitored and indicators defined to this end.The WSIS Mid-term Review Table (at the end of this chapter) summarizes the main results of the report, includingproposed revisions to the targets to facilitate measurement, the most relevant action lines, and the indicatorsproposed to monitor each of the targets. The proposals should be considered as preliminary, and will be subjectto further consultation and refinement (see below).The table also provides an overall assessment of the status ofthe targets and the indicators for which data were available, by developed and developing countries. It shows that,whereas in developed countries most indicators have a high level of achievement, this is not the case in developingcountries, where only few indicators have reached a high level of achievement and most indicators are still at a lowlevel. This confirms the urgent need for policy action outlined throughout the report.212

Conclusions and the way forwardThe mid-term review clearly suffered from limited data availability. Even though the most basic indicators were chosen,they are often not collected at the national (or international) level, or are outdated. It was therefore not possibleto perform a comprehensive global assessment of all targets. The questionnaire sent out by ITU in preparation for thereview was returned by 48 countries, but information was not always provided for all of the targets.Without further and more extensive data collection at the national level, it will be difficult to assess whether the WSISgoals and targets will be met by 2015. This is a problem for developing countries in particular, where ICT penetrationlevels are lower and which are behind in meeting several of the targets.One of the difficulties of measuring progress towards the WSIS targets has been the lack of concrete, measurable andwell-defined indicators. The Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development has drawn up a core list of ICT indicators,and an increasing number of countries are using them to collect ICT statistics. However, the WSIS targets go beyondthe Partnership’s current core list. This report represents the first effort made at the international level to define aset of quantifiable indicators related to each WSIS target. The proposed indicators can facilitate data collection andcomparisons between countries, and countries should find them useful in their efforts to monitor their informationsociety developments.Monitoring progress towards the WSIS targets needs to be continued up to at least 2015. The international communityneeds to assist countries in the measurement process. The indicators presented in this report can serve as astarting point, but they need to be further refined, and perhaps expanded, in consultation with the WSIS community.As a follow-up to the mid-term review presented here, it is therefore proposed that a sustained effort be made by theinternational community to develop a monitoring framework for the WSIS targets and assist the data collection processat the national and international levels. The Partnership is best placed to take on such a task. Indeed, in 2008, theUnited Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) recommended that the Partnership track progress towardsthe achievement of the WSIS goals and targets (Resolution 2008/3, § 29). In particular, it“Recommends that the Partnership on Measuring Information and Communication Technologies for Developmentconsider the creation of benchmarks and indicators, including impact indicators, for further consideration and decisionby the Statistical Commission, in order to track progress towards the attainment of the specific goals and targetsset out in the outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, particularly section B of the Planof Action adopted in Geneva.”Under the umbrella of the Partnership, ITU, the co-authors of this report (UNESCO, WHO, UNDESA and representativesfrom civil society, such as FUNREDES) and other Partnership members should work together to develop a measurementframework for the WSIS targets, in close collaboration with other relevant stakeholders. A final matrix forall targets and action lines should be presented as soon as possible and disseminated widely to help countries in theirmonitoring efforts. Data should be compiled on a continuous basis, and regular quantitative updates of progress onthe goals should be prepared by the partners. A final report should then be prepared for 2015, setting forth a globalassessment of progress achieved in reaching the WSIS targets and goals.213

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsWSIS mid-term review table: Targets, action lines, proposed indicators and overall statusWSIS Targets Proposed targetrevisions for .monitoringprogress1. To connectvillages with ICTs andestablish communityaccess points2. To connectuniversities, colleges,secondary schoolsand primary schoolswith ICTs3. To connectscientific andresearch centres withICTs4. To connect publiclibraries, culturalcentres, museums,post offices andarchives with ICTs5. To connect healthcentres and hospitalswith ICTsTo connect allvillages with ICTsand establishcommunity accesspointsTo connect alluniversities, colleges,secondaryschools and primaryschools with ICTsTo connect allscientific andresearch centreswith ICTsTo connect all publiclibraries, culturalcentres, museums,post offices andarchives with ICTsTo connect allhealth centres andhospitals with ICTsMost relevant WSIS .action linesС2. Information andcommunicationinfrastructureC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC4. Capacity buildingС2. Information and communicationinfrastructureC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC7. E-learningC2. Information andcommunicationinfrastructureC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC7. E-scienceC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC4. Capacity buildingC8. Cultural diversity andidentity, linguistic diversityand local contentС2. Information andcommunicationinfrastructureC7. E-HealthProposed indicators for monitoring progress* Overview of level ofachievement, 2009**DevelopedcountriesDevelopingcountries1. Rural population covered by a mobile cellular telephone network, broken down by technology High High2. Rural households with a telephone, by type of service (fixed and/or mobile, mobile only, fixed only) High Medium3. Rural households with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) Medium Low4. Localities with public Internet access centres (PIACs), by type of access and urban/rural Medium Low5. Location of individual use of the Internet in the last 12 months (including PIACs), by urban/rural n.a. n.a.1. Schools with a radio used for educational purposes High Medium2. Schools with a television used for educational purposes High Medium3. Schools with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) High Low4. Learners-to-computer ratio High Low1. Scientific and research centres with broadband Internet access High Medium2. Presence of a national research and education network (NREN), by bandwidth capacity (Mbit/s) High Medium3. Number of NREN nodes n.a. n.a.4. Universities connected to the NREN by type of connection (narrowband, broadband) High Medium5. Scientific and research centres connected to the NREN by type of connection (narrowband, broadband) High Medium1. Public libraries with broadband Internet access High Low2. Public libraries providing public Internet access Medium Low3. Public libraries with a website Medium Low4. Cultural centres with broadband Internet access n.a. n.a.5. Cultural centres with a website n.a. n.a.6. Cultural centres providing public Internet access n.a. n.a.7. Museums with broadband Internet access High Medium8. Museums with a website High Medium9. Post offices with broadband Internet access n.a. Low10. Post offices providing public Internet access n.a. Low11. Archives with broadband Internet access High Medium12. Archives with a website Medium Low13. Content in archives that has been digitized n.a. n.a.14. Digitized information in archives that is available online n.a. n.a.1. Public hospitals with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) High Medium2. Health centres with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) High Low3. Public hospitals using computers/the Internet to collect/process/transmit individual patient information Medium Low4. Health centres using computers/the Internet to collect/process/transmit individual patient information Medium Low214

Conclusions and the way forwardWSIS mid-term review table: Targets, action lines, proposed indicators and overall status (continued)WSIS Targets Proposed targetrevisions for .monitoringprogress6. To connect alllocal and centralgovernment departmentsand establishwebsites and e-mailaddresses7. To adapt all primaryand secondaryschool curricula tomeet the challengesof the informationsociety, taking intoaccount nationalcircumstances8. To ensure that allof the world’s populationhave access totelevision and radioservices9. To encourage thedevelopment of contentand put in placetechnical conditionsin order to facilitatethe presence and useof all world languageson the Internet10. To ensure thatmore than half theworld’s inhabitantshave access to ICTswithin their reachTo connect all localand central governmentdepartmentsand establishwebsites and e-mailaddresses(no revision proposed)(no revision proposed)(no revision proposed)To ensure thatmore than half theworld’s inhabitantshave access to ICTs,in particular broadbandInternet,within their reachand make use ofthemMost relevant WSISaction linesС1. The role of publicgovernance authorities andall stakeholders in the promotionof ICTs for developmentС2. Information and communicationinfrastructureC3. Access to information andknowledgeC7. E-governmentC4. Capacity buildingC7. E-learningС2. Information and communicationinfrastructureC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC9. MediaC3. Access to informationand knowledgeC8. Cultural diversity andidentity, linguistic diversityand local contentС2. Information and communicationinfrastructureC3. Access to information andknowledgeC6. Enabling environmentC7. ICT applications: benefitsin all aspects of lifeProposed indicators for monitoring progress* Overview of level ofachievement, 2009**DevelopedcountriesDevelopingcountries1. Government employees using the Internet n.a. n.a2. Government employees using computers n.a. n.a.3. Government institutions with Internet access, by type of access (narrowband, broadband)*** High Medium4. Government institutions with a website*** High Medium5. Government institutions using corporate networks (LAN, WAN, intranet, extranet)*** n.a. n.a.6. Government institutions offering online services, by type of service (interactive, transactional,connected)***Medium Low1. ICT-qualified teachers in primary and secondary schools n.a. n.a.2. Teachers trained to teach subjects using ICT Medium Low3. Schools with computer-assisted instruction High Medium4. Schools with Internet-assisted instruction High Low1. Households with a radio High High2. Households with a TV High High3. Households with multichannel television service, by type of service High Low1. Internet users, by language Low Low2. Webpages, by language Low Low1. Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants High High2. Individuals who used a mobile cellular telephone in the last 12 months High Medium3. Individuals who used the Internet (from any location) in the last 12 months High Medium4. Households with access to the Internet, by type of access (narrowband, broadband) High LowNote: *Refers to percentages unless otherwise indicated. **High/medium/low level of achievement of indicator based on reported values; n.a. = data not available to determine overall status. Based on dataavailable and featured in the chapters of this report. ***Includes local and central government institutions.Source: ITU.215

WTDR 2010: Monitoring the WSIS targetsNotes1For more information on the ITU Build on Broadband initiative, see http://www.itu.int/en/broadband/Pages/default.aspx.2For more information on UNCTAD’s work on ICT measurement, see http://measuring-ict.unctad.org.216

AnnexAnnex table 1. List of countries that responded to the ITU questionnaire on WSIS targetsCountryAlbaniaAndorraAustriaBhutanBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBruneiBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiEgyptFinlandGermanyHaitiHungaryIraqIrelandKorea (Rep.)KyrgyzstanLatviaLesothoLithuaniaMaltaMexicoMoroccoMyanmarNauruNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaParaguaySingaporeSlovak RepublicSloveniaSt. LuciaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSwedenThailandTurkeyUnited KingdomOrganizationMinistry of Transports, Public Works and Telecommunication (MPPTT)Andorra TelecomAustrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and TelecommunicationsMinistry of Information and CommunicationViceministerio de TelecomunicacionesCommunications Regulatory AgencyDepartment of telecommunications and Postal ServicesAgência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL)Authority of Info-Communications Technology Industry of Brunei Darussalam (AITI)Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and CommunicationsMinistry of the Sea, Transport and InfrastructureDepartment of Electronic Communications, Ministry of Communications and WorksMinistry of Industry and TradeNational IT- and Telecom AgencyMinistry of communication, culture, post and telecommunicationMCIT information centerFinnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA)Federal Ministry of Economics and TechnologyConseil National des Télécommunications (CONATEL)Prime Minister’s Office, State Secretariat for ICTCentral organization for statistics and information technologyCommission for Communications RegulationKorea Communications CommissionNational Communication AgencyMinistry of TransportLesotho Communications AuthorityInformation Society Development Committee under the Government of LithuaniaMalta Communications Authority (MCA)Coordination of the Information and Knowledge SocietyNational Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (ANRT)Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications DepartmentDepartment of Information and Communication TechnologiesStatistics HollandMinistry of Economic DevelopmentInstituto Nicaraguense de Telecomunicaciones y Correos (TELCOR)Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL)Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)Ministry of Transport, Posts and Telecommunications of the Slovak RepublicPost and Electronic Communications Agency of Republic of Slovenia (APEK)Ministry of Education and CultureNational telecommunications Regulatory CommissionStatistics SwedenMinistry of Information and Communication TechnologyState Planning OrganizationOfcom217